Rand Paul's below the belt ad hominem against Bill

[Si modo]

Acorn meet tree.

"Originally, when I began reporting on the Neo-Nazis and conspiracy theory driven right wing extremists and their associations with Ron Paul, I assumed they were a fringe group who jumped on to the Ron Paul bandwagon. Then after doing extensive research, I realized that not only did the Neo-Nazis and the John Birch/Timothy McVeigh based conspiracy theorists support Ron Paul, but Ron Paul supports the views of the Neo-Nazis and the conspiracy theorists.

There are several pieces of evidence tying Paul to both white supremacists and right wing conspiracy theorists. One connection that ties Paul to both Neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists, is his close connection to the John Birch society. The John Birch Society is a group that has been called, paranoid, radical, racist, and extremist, and believes in a Jewish/Freemason conspiracy to transform the world into a communist “New World Order.”" Ron Paul Is A White Supremacist - Jack & Jill Politics


PS William Jefferson Clinton raised TAXES, and we had the best economy since Reagan started the destruction of the working class and the middle class.

Okay TWO PIECES OF STUPIDTY.

A) It's obvious I schooled liberals on trying to attack Rand Paul via, HOW DARE HE INSULT BILL CLINTON FOR BEING A SERIAL LIAR AND ADULTERER. JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW IT'S TRUE AND WE WOULDN'T LET A REPUBLICAN OFF THE HOOK LIKE THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T DEMAND IT OF PAUL!!!!!

So, given that completely failed, all they have left is attack the father? Really? That's all you got! ATOMIC FAIL LIBERALS.

If it's "below the belt" to bring up Bill Clinton's past, it's NOT "below the belt to bring up Rand Paul's FATHER'S PAST?????????

ROFL WHAT A PACK OF HYPOCRITES!!!!

Thank you for proving me right once again, what a pack of utter hypocrites you are.

B) William Jefferson had the best economy?

You want to check unemployment figures for Bubba again?

Because that great economy you talk about, didn't happen until Republicans took Congress in 1994, and FORCED Clinton to cut capital gains and reform Welfare (and that's just two things they forced Clinton to do). How did they force him? Clinton didn't want to be embarrassed by an overrride vote, so he sign them, after he had vetoed them before.

Go ahead and look when unemployment numbers start to fall. It's AFTER 1994. Oh and that means your raise taxes meme doesn't count for much, because cutting capital gains, was a TAX CUT. Oops!

The United States Unemployment Rate By Year

Thing is, TPS, Rand Paul is not criticizing Clinton for being an adulterer. He's criticizing him for his use of his position of power for sexual favors from subordinates.

I agree with that criticism, be it one who does it in government, as a physician, as a professor, as a boss, etc.

 

[Paulie]

Without earmarks, the money is tracked by the agency and reported each year to the auditors. It's regulation. So, the transparency is already there. It's built in.

I disagree. Not only do I not trust the tracking, but handing the money to the administration to allocate is dangerous.

You're giving one political party, the one that sits in the white house, the power of the purse in that regard.

You really want Obama and his cabinet having carte blanche with appropriations?

Oh, Gawd, no!

I think we have our wires crossed.

Here's what I'm talking about, first generally, then using a hypothetical, yet commonplace example, for illustration. The President proposes a budget. Yeah, that's fine. Congress votes on that budget. That's more than fine, for the reason you mention in your post above - dangerous to have it otherwise.

What I, and many others around town, would like to see is that budget looks something like this:

$a billion to CIA
$b billion to DoD
$c billion to DLA
etc.
$d billion to NSF
$e billion to NIH
$f billion to CDC
etc.
and yada, yada, yada.

Instead, what we get out of Congress is something like this, just using one agency as an example: NIH gets $e billion. Of that, $x million is earmarked to go to MYFAVCONTRIBUTOR Biotech, Inc., Chicago, IL for research into development of cis-platin analogs for cancer chemotherapy.

Now, there is little that is wrong in developing such analogs, however, the NIH/NCI already knows that better use of that money would be research and drug development into drugs that bypass the drug resistance mechanism of tumor cells. Most of the folks at the NIH/NCI are experts on cancer and what is beneficial to the cancer patients in the short term and the long term. It's a great bet that congresscritters are extremely ignorant on that subject.

I hope that clarifies my point of view.

No, I understand what you're saying. Congress votes to appropriate the funds to the administration to use.

Congress only got to decide whether or not to spend the money. But now, the administration gets to decide how all the money is spent.

I don't like that, because I don't trust letting one branch of government have all the power in where the money goes.

If I want to be represented in how I'm taxed, I want to be represented in how my taxes are spent, as well.

I guess I have less trust in the agencies than you do. While there are of course plenty of upstanding people who work for those agencies, they still have to answer to a boss that answers to the administration.

I look at earmarks like this...I got this from a blog, but it's a great representation of how they can be viewed:

Let’s say you and your college buddies are hanging out in your mom’s basement playing some D&D. It’s getting late, and everyone is getting hungry. Ronnie says he doesn’t want to get dinner, since he brought a hoagie, but everyone else wants to order pizza. Ron is outvoted and they decide to order pizza.
When it comes time to order, the gang collects they money from everyone, including Ron. Ron says he brought food, so he didn’t think he should pay. Tough luck, Ron… we all voted, and you’re paying. “Fine,” says Ron, “But I want a white pizza with onions.”
“Wait, you said you didn’t want pizza! Are you going to be having pizza with us now? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?”
“Well, I voted to not get pizza, but since you already have my money, and there’s nothing I can do about that, I might as well state my preference for the pizza that comes. It’s the only way I’m going to get the best use out of the money I’ve lost. I’d much rather keep the money and not have the pizza, but to avoid the pizza out of principle is simply cheating myself.”

 

[Samson]

Acorn meet tree.

"Originally, when I began reporting on the Neo-Nazis and conspiracy theory driven right wing extremists and their associations with Ron Paul, I assumed they were a fringe group who jumped on to the Ron Paul bandwagon. Then after doing extensive research, I realized that not only did the Neo-Nazis and the John Birch/Timothy McVeigh based conspiracy theorists support Ron Paul, but Ron Paul supports the views of the Neo-Nazis and the conspiracy theorists.

There are several pieces of evidence tying Paul to both white supremacists and right wing conspiracy theorists. One connection that ties Paul to both Neo-Nazis and conspiracy theorists, is his close connection to the John Birch society. The John Birch Society is a group that has been called, paranoid, radical, racist, and extremist, and believes in a Jewish/Freemason conspiracy to transform the world into a communist “New World Order.”" Ron Paul Is A White Supremacist - Jack & Jill Politics


PS William Jefferson Clinton raised TAXES, and we had the best economy since Reagan started the destruction of the working class and the middle class.

Okay TWO PIECES OF STUPIDTY.

A) It's obvious I schooled liberals on trying to attack Rand Paul via, HOW DARE HE INSULT BILL CLINTON FOR BEING A SERIAL LIAR AND ADULTERER. JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW IT'S TRUE AND WE WOULDN'T LET A REPUBLICAN OFF THE HOOK LIKE THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T DEMAND IT OF PAUL!!!!!

So, given that completely failed, all they have left is attack the father? Really? That's all you got! ATOMIC FAIL LIBERALS.

If it's "below the belt" to bring up Bill Clinton's past, it's NOT "below the belt to bring up Rand Paul's FATHER'S PAST?????????

ROFL WHAT A PACK OF HYPOCRITES!!!!

Thank you for proving me right once again, what a pack of utter hypocrites you are.

B) William Jefferson had the best economy?

You want to check unemployment figures for Bubba again?

Because that great economy you talk about, didn't happen until Republicans took Congress in 1994, and FORCED Clinton to cut capital gains and reform Welfare (and that's just two things they forced Clinton to do). How did they force him? Clinton didn't want to be embarrassed by an overrride vote, so he sign them, after he had vetoed them before.

Go ahead and look when unemployment numbers start to fall. It's AFTER 1994. Oh and that means your raise taxes meme doesn't count for much, because cutting capital gains, was a TAX CUT. Oops!

The United States Unemployment Rate By Year

Thing is, TPS, Rand Paul is not criticizing Clinton for being an adulterer. He's criticizing him for his use of his position of power for sexual favors from subordinates.

I agree with that criticism, be it one who does it in government, as a physician, as a professor, as a boss, etc.

What about being a high Priest in a Witch's Coven? Would the use of his position of power for sexual favors from subordinates be OK then?

 

[Paulie]

This is all keeping in mind of course, that a bad appropriation bill itself should have already been voted against, which Ron Paul does.

 

[Si modo]

I disagree. Not only do I not trust the tracking, but handing the money to the administration to allocate is dangerous.

You're giving one political party, the one that sits in the white house, the power of the purse in that regard.

You really want Obama and his cabinet having carte blanche with appropriations?

Oh, Gawd, no!

I think we have our wires crossed.

Here's what I'm talking about, first generally, then using a hypothetical, yet commonplace example, for illustration. The President proposes a budget. Yeah, that's fine. Congress votes on that budget. That's more than fine, for the reason you mention in your post above - dangerous to have it otherwise.

What I, and many others around town, would like to see is that budget looks something like this:

$a billion to CIA
$b billion to DoD
$c billion to DLA
etc.
$d billion to NSF
$e billion to NIH
$f billion to CDC
etc.
and yada, yada, yada.

Instead, what we get out of Congress is something like this, just using one agency as an example: NIH gets $e billion. Of that, $x million is earmarked to go to MYFAVCONTRIBUTOR Biotech, Inc., Chicago, IL for research into development of cis-platin analogs for cancer chemotherapy.

Now, there is little that is wrong in developing such analogs, however, the NIH/NCI already knows that better use of that money would be research and drug development into drugs that bypass the drug resistance mechanism of tumor cells. Most of the folks at the NIH/NCI are experts on cancer and what is beneficial to the cancer patients in the short term and the long term. It's a great bet that congresscritters are extremely ignorant on that subject.

I hope that clarifies my point of view.

No, I understand what you're saying. Congress votes to appropriate the funds to the administration to use.

Congress only got to decide whether or not to spend the money. But now, the administration gets to decide how all the money is spent.

I don't like that, because I don't trust letting one branch of government have all the power in where the money goes.

If I want to be represented in how I'm taxed, I want to be represented in how my taxes are spent, as well.

I guess I have less trust in the agencies than you do. While there are of course plenty of upstanding people who work for those agencies, they still have to answer to a boss that answers to the administration.

I look at earmarks like this...I got this from a blog, but it's a great representation of how they can be viewed:

Let’s say you and your college buddies are hanging out in your mom’s basement playing some D&D. It’s getting late, and everyone is getting hungry. Ronnie says he doesn’t want to get dinner, since he brought a hoagie, but everyone else wants to order pizza. Ron is outvoted and they decide to order pizza.
When it comes time to order, the gang collects they money from everyone, including Ron. Ron says he brought food, so he didn’t think he should pay. Tough luck, Ron… we all voted, and you’re paying. “Fine,” says Ron, “But I want a white pizza with onions.”
“Wait, you said you didn’t want pizza! Are you going to be having pizza with us now? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?”
“Well, I voted to not get pizza, but since you already have my money, and there’s nothing I can do about that, I might as well state my preference for the pizza that comes. It’s the only way I’m going to get the best use out of the money I’ve lost. I’d much rather keep the money and not have the pizza, but to avoid the pizza out of principle is simply cheating myself.”

Although most agencies are part of the Executive Branch, they are accountable to Congress. Thus the absolute power that concerns you is not quite absolute.

And your analogy is not quite right. The troglodytes are deciding use of money in an area where they are actually experts - their taste in pizza. So, that's fine.

ETA: And, if the earmark mechanism were not in place, Congress would not be as motivated to have budgets as large as they are.

 

[topspin]

I bet the fucking loon trust Vitter just fine.

 

[Paulie]

Oh, Gawd, no!

I think we have our wires crossed.

Here's what I'm talking about, first generally, then using a hypothetical, yet commonplace example, for illustration. The President proposes a budget. Yeah, that's fine. Congress votes on that budget. That's more than fine, for the reason you mention in your post above - dangerous to have it otherwise.

What I, and many others around town, would like to see is that budget looks something like this:

$a billion to CIA
$b billion to DoD
$c billion to DLA
etc.
$d billion to NSF
$e billion to NIH
$f billion to CDC
etc.
and yada, yada, yada.

Instead, what we get out of Congress is something like this, just using one agency as an example: NIH gets $e billion. Of that, $x million is earmarked to go to MYFAVCONTRIBUTOR Biotech, Inc., Chicago, IL for research into development of cis-platin analogs for cancer chemotherapy.

Now, there is little that is wrong in developing such analogs, however, the NIH/NCI already knows that better use of that money would be research and drug development into drugs that bypass the drug resistance mechanism of tumor cells. Most of the folks at the NIH/NCI are experts on cancer and what is beneficial to the cancer patients in the short term and the long term. It's a great bet that congresscritters are extremely ignorant on that subject.

I hope that clarifies my point of view.

No, I understand what you're saying. Congress votes to appropriate the funds to the administration to use.

Congress only got to decide whether or not to spend the money. But now, the administration gets to decide how all the money is spent.

I don't like that, because I don't trust letting one branch of government have all the power in where the money goes.

If I want to be represented in how I'm taxed, I want to be represented in how my taxes are spent, as well.

I guess I have less trust in the agencies than you do. While there are of course plenty of upstanding people who work for those agencies, they still have to answer to a boss that answers to the administration.

I look at earmarks like this...I got this from a blog, but it's a great representation of how they can be viewed:

Let’s say you and your college buddies are hanging out in your mom’s basement playing some D&D. It’s getting late, and everyone is getting hungry. Ronnie says he doesn’t want to get dinner, since he brought a hoagie, but everyone else wants to order pizza. Ron is outvoted and they decide to order pizza.
When it comes time to order, the gang collects they money from everyone, including Ron. Ron says he brought food, so he didn’t think he should pay. Tough luck, Ron… we all voted, and you’re paying. “Fine,” says Ron, “But I want a white pizza with onions.”
“Wait, you said you didn’t want pizza! Are you going to be having pizza with us now? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?”
“Well, I voted to not get pizza, but since you already have my money, and there’s nothing I can do about that, I might as well state my preference for the pizza that comes. It’s the only way I’m going to get the best use out of the money I’ve lost. I’d much rather keep the money and not have the pizza, but to avoid the pizza out of principle is simply cheating myself.”

Although most agencies are part of the Executive Branch, they are accountable to Congress. Thus the absolute power that concerns you is not quite absolute.

And your analogy is not quite right. The troglodytes are deciding use of money in an area where they are actually experts - their taste in pizza. So, that's fine.

ETA: And, if the earmark mechanism was not in place, Congress would not be as motivated to have budgets as large as they are.

With all these czars being created, and their limited amount of transparency and oversight, I'm just not as optimistic about this as you are.

 

[Si modo]

Okay TWO PIECES OF STUPIDTY.

A) It's obvious I schooled liberals on trying to attack Rand Paul via, HOW DARE HE INSULT BILL CLINTON FOR BEING A SERIAL LIAR AND ADULTERER. JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW IT'S TRUE AND WE WOULDN'T LET A REPUBLICAN OFF THE HOOK LIKE THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T DEMAND IT OF PAUL!!!!!

So, given that completely failed, all they have left is attack the father? Really? That's all you got! ATOMIC FAIL LIBERALS.

If it's "below the belt" to bring up Bill Clinton's past, it's NOT "below the belt to bring up Rand Paul's FATHER'S PAST?????????

ROFL WHAT A PACK OF HYPOCRITES!!!!

Thank you for proving me right once again, what a pack of utter hypocrites you are.

B) William Jefferson had the best economy?

You want to check unemployment figures for Bubba again?

Because that great economy you talk about, didn't happen until Republicans took Congress in 1994, and FORCED Clinton to cut capital gains and reform Welfare (and that's just two things they forced Clinton to do). How did they force him? Clinton didn't want to be embarrassed by an overrride vote, so he sign them, after he had vetoed them before.

Go ahead and look when unemployment numbers start to fall. It's AFTER 1994. Oh and that means your raise taxes meme doesn't count for much, because cutting capital gains, was a TAX CUT. Oops!

The United States Unemployment Rate By Year

Thing is, TPS, Rand Paul is not criticizing Clinton for being an adulterer. He's criticizing him for his use of his position of power for sexual favors from subordinates.

I agree with that criticism, be it one who does it in government, as a physician, as a professor, as a boss, etc.

What about being a high Priest in a Witch's Coven? Would the use of his position of power for sexual favors from subordinates be OK then?

I know two things about witch's covens - jack and shit. So, I have no idea, but in general, yes. In general, I find it deplorable to use authority in exchange for sexual favors.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Hi, you have received 21 reputation points from Dick Tuck.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Thank you for being such a blathering idiot, and making your own side of the fence look like loonies.

Regards,
Dick Tuck

Yeah when you can't argue you libs are utter hypocrites about this "outrage" I guess sneaking off with just a neg rep, at least salves your hurt pride.

You stupid tea bagging loon. I gave you a positive rep for being an asshat. It makes the sane people's job much easier when you own yourself.

 

[Si modo]

No, I understand what you're saying. Congress votes to appropriate the funds to the administration to use.

Congress only got to decide whether or not to spend the money. But now, the administration gets to decide how all the money is spent.

I don't like that, because I don't trust letting one branch of government have all the power in where the money goes.

If I want to be represented in how I'm taxed, I want to be represented in how my taxes are spent, as well.

I guess I have less trust in the agencies than you do. While there are of course plenty of upstanding people who work for those agencies, they still have to answer to a boss that answers to the administration.

I look at earmarks like this...I got this from a blog, but it's a great representation of how they can be viewed:

Although most agencies are part of the Executive Branch, they are accountable to Congress. Thus the absolute power that concerns you is not quite absolute.

And your analogy is not quite right. The troglodytes are deciding use of money in an area where they are actually experts - their taste in pizza. So, that's fine.

ETA: And, if the earmark mechanism was not in place, Congress would not be as motivated to have budgets as large as they are.

With all these czars being created, and their limited amount of transparency and oversight, I'm just not as optimistic about this as you are.

No doubt it's a clusterfuck and amazingly inefficient.

Plus, although this administration promised us transparency like never before, we have less than before - or at least as much. No surprise.

 

[Paulie]

Although most agencies are part of the Executive Branch, they are accountable to Congress. Thus the absolute power that concerns you is not quite absolute.

And your analogy is not quite right. The troglodytes are deciding use of money in an area where they are actually experts - their taste in pizza. So, that's fine.

ETA: And, if the earmark mechanism was not in place, Congress would not be as motivated to have budgets as large as they are.

With all these czars being created, and their limited amount of transparency and oversight, I'm just not as optimistic about this as you are.

No doubt it's a clusterfuck and amazingly inefficient.

Plus, although this administration promised us transparency like never before, we have less than before. No surprise.

There were just as many czars under Bush.

There's been czars since FDR.

There will NEVER be transparency. NEVER.

The government is just too big and powerful. They'll just throw us enough bones to keep us pacified.

We've been screwed for going on well over 100 years now.

 

[Dick Tuck]

With all these czars being created, and their limited amount of transparency and oversight, I'm just not as optimistic about this as you are.

No doubt it's a clusterfuck and amazingly inefficient.

Plus, although this administration promised us transparency like never before, we have less than before. No surprise.

There were just as many czars under Bush.

There's been czars since FDR.

There will NEVER be transparency. NEVER.

The government is just too big and powerful. They'll just throw us enough bones to keep us pacified.

We've been screwed for going on well over 100 years now.

The only power that these so-called czars have is to act as advisers. The Supreme Court, time after time, has upheld the right of a President to be advised, and upheld the separation of powers, that congress can't demand their testimony as to what they advised.

Political advisers go back well before FDR's $1/year men.

 

[Si modo]

With all these czars being created, and their limited amount of transparency and oversight, I'm just not as optimistic about this as you are.

No doubt it's a clusterfuck and amazingly inefficient.

Plus, although this administration promised us transparency like never before, we have less than before. No surprise.

There were just as many czars under Bush.

There's been czars since FDR.

There will NEVER be transparency. NEVER.

The government is just too big and powerful. They'll just throw us enough bones to keep us pacified.

We've been screwed for going on well over 100 years now.

I agree. That's why I advocate almost anything that will simplify the governmental process. When the process is so overwhelmingly complicated, those involved in the process often have no idea what they are doing, and it makes transparency for those outside the process a pipedream. I'm all for any baby steps that will simplify so that there can be transparency; but I'm also for transparency where it already is possible. And, that plan seems to be gone.

 

[Paulie]

No doubt it's a clusterfuck and amazingly inefficient.

Plus, although this administration promised us transparency like never before, we have less than before. No surprise.

There were just as many czars under Bush.

There's been czars since FDR.

There will NEVER be transparency. NEVER.

The government is just too big and powerful. They'll just throw us enough bones to keep us pacified.

We've been screwed for going on well over 100 years now.

The only power that these so-called czars have is to act as advisers. The Supreme Court, time after time, has upheld the right of a President to be advised, and upheld the separation of powers, that congress can't demand their testimony as to what they advised.

Political advisers go back well before FDR's $1/year men.

Are you kidding me? Many of these czars have been given power over cabinet officials.

Does Kenneth Feinberg ring a bell?

 

[topspin]

what we need now is a tough morally sound Man against blow jobs.

 

[Stephanie]

gawd, lefties today are nothing but whiny little bitches.

waaaa, they brought up Lewinsky, how DARE they.

Clinton was a hound dog who took Advantage of his position and power over a 20 something woman, but that surly doesn't BOTHER anyone on the left.

But remember folks, they try and tell us they are the party for the WOMAN.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Rand Paul Lobs Lewinsky Attack At Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton talks about the economy and this shithead brings up Lewinsky.

Are you saying that ad sucks?

 

[Dick Tuck]

There were just as many czars under Bush.

There's been czars since FDR.

There will NEVER be transparency. NEVER.

The government is just too big and powerful. They'll just throw us enough bones to keep us pacified.

We've been screwed for going on well over 100 years now.

The only power that these so-called czars have is to act as advisers. The Supreme Court, time after time, has upheld the right of a President to be advised, and upheld the separation of powers, that congress can't demand their testimony as to what they advised.

Political advisers go back well before FDR's $1/year men.

Are you kidding me? Many of these czars have been given power over cabinet officials.

Does Kenneth Feinberg ring a bell?

Bullshit. They can't direct any agency, they can only advise agencies. Feinberg cannot give out a penny of money, he can only advise, observe, and report back to the president.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Rand Paul Lobs Lewinsky Attack At Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton talks about the economy and this shithead brings up Lewinsky.

Are you saying that ad sucks?

It's a great ad. It reminds people of the days of peace and prosperity, when the only thing that the right would worry about is who toots Bubba's flute, and what we would tell the children about the 24/7 blowjob cycle.

 

[Sallow]

what we need now is a tough morally sound Man against blow jobs.