Rand Paul Just Gained A Lot Of Respect From Me

[edthecynic]

I've been paying into SS for more than 30 years. If I collect a check when I'm 60 or so does THAT make me a Communist?

According to Ayn Rand, yes.

Rand argues that a country dedicated to individualism must oppose every “redistribution” of wealth for a simple but profound reason: it’s not our wealth to redistribute.

Social Security isn't a "wealth redistribution" system. It's a direct Tax paid to Bankers as Interest on the money the Federal Reserve Bank LENDS the USA every year. They just call it Social Security to make it sound nice. Sorta like The Patriot Act.

America went Bankrupt in 1933 and SS was a deal with the Banks. Think I'm lying? Go look it up.

I'm just pointing out what hypocrite Ayn Rand claims.

Of course, she rationalizes ONLY people like her who object to SS are entitled to collect it.

Rand views welfare programs like Social Security as legalized plunder, she thinks the only condition under which it is moral to collect Social Security is if one “regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism” (emphasis hers).

 

[Edgetho]

Um, if you need more than a week or two to figure out you want an abortion in the case of rape or incest, you aren't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

Health of the mother exceptions of course make sense, but of course the abortion rights idiots stretch that to the limit, i.e. mental health, not an IDLH, (immediate danger to life and health).

I just don't see what the problem is --

If these people, the VAST majority of whom are dimocraps, want to terminate their pregnancy -- Good on them.

Don't continue the line. It's like animal husbandry..... You got a bad strain of animal, don't continue the line.

I'm fucking serious when I tell you that dimocraps should not only be given free abortions but ENCOURAGED to have them and then given $5 from the Keep America Beautiful Fund

 

[martybegan]

I've been paying into SS for more than 30 years. If I collect a check when I'm 60 or so does THAT make me a Communist?

According to Ayn Rand, yes.

Rand argues that a country dedicated to individualism must oppose every “redistribution” of wealth for a simple but profound reason: it’s not our wealth to redistribute.

Social Security isn't a "wealth redistribution" system. It's a direct Tax paid to Bankers as Interest on the money the Federal Reserve Bank LENDS the USA every year. They just call it Social Security to make it sound nice. Sorta like The Patriot Act.

America went Bankrupt in 1933 and SS was a deal with the Banks. Think I'm lying? Go look it up.

I'm just pointing out what hypocrite Ayn Rand claims.

Of course, she rationalizes ONLY people like her who object to SS are entitled to collect it.

Rand views welfare programs like Social Security as legalized plunder, she thinks the only condition under which it is moral to collect Social Security is if one “regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism” (emphasis hers).

But we are talking about Rand Paul.......

Seriously, your OCD vis a vis Ayn Rand and Rushbo needs help, medical help.

 

[Edgetho]

But we are talking about Rand Paul.......

Seriously, your OCD vis a vis Ayn Rand and Rushbo needs help, medical help.

He's the guy that's having a different conversation than the rest of the group.

You know who I'm talking about.

You don't invite him, he just kind of shows up.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Rand Paul plagiarizer

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The alleged coalition Paul is striving to create is deeply improbable, if not downright impossible. But quite apart from that, and many other profound liabilities, there's just one that will inevitably sink him: a long, long history of conspiracy theories which are uniformly whacky and often veer into the rantings of the militia, white supremacist and neo-confederate right. Here's one that is simply whacky that came to mind as I was reading the Paul coverage this morning.

It goes back to 2008. And Rand Paul is campaigning for his father in Montana. And he's railing against something called the "NAFTA Superhighway." As Paul's father wrote two years earlier, "Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside. ... The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union - complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union."

Haven't heard of the NAFTA Superhighway? That's because it doesn't exist. It never has. It's not just that it hasn't been built. The whole thing is a concoction of the Alex Jones, freedomy militia far-right. Even Rand, warning about the dangers understood that people had to be careful talking about it since people might think you're crazy. "It's a real thing," Rand told dad's supporters, "and when you talk about it, the thing you just have to be aware of is that, if you talk about it like it's a conspiracy, they'll paint you as a nut."
Tinfoil Rand

 

[g5000]

The author of the OP made a few straw man fallacies. For example, I doubt Clinton would pause for even a second when asked if Christ died for our sins. She would answer in the affirmative without hesitation.

Someone also needs to correct the author's all too common mistake of referring to the "Democrat Party". It's the Democratic Party.

All that aside, Rand Paul's retort was a good one. I have frequently pointed out the disgusting tactics of the pro-choice partisans in public debate. They use victims of some of the worst crimes as human shields.

Get back to us, Debbie, when you can tell us when life begins.

As for the poll question that was cited, I have also pointed out many times that half of Americans self-identify as "pro-life" and that half self-identify as "pro-choice" and yet two-thirds of Americans say they oppose abortion after the first trimester, which is in direct conflict with Roe v. Wade. Which means there is a lot of overlap between the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" camps. Something which the extremists in both camps do their utter best to hijack.

The extremists are very successful at polarizing people, to the point that even someone who is reasonable on the issue can feel pushed further and further toward the extreme as the debate heats up.

 

[g5000]

Rand Paul: I'll Answer Your Wedge-Issue Question About Abortion, The Moment You Ask Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if It's Okay to "Kill a Seven-Pound Baby That Isn't Born Yet"

“Here’s an answer,” said Schultz. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”

And there it is. Just as I said. Schultz just used victims of the most heinous crimes of rape and incest as human shields.

Sickening.

That's the extremism I am talking about which hijacks the issue of one million-plus abortions a year that have nothing to do with rape or incest. Rape and incest account for less than 2 percent of all abortions.

Schultz uses the crime victims as human shields to protect the million-plus other abortions from being prevented.

 

[g5000]

“Here’s an answer,” said Schultz. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”

Did you notice she did not answer the question of whether it is okay to kill a 7 pound baby in the uterus?

I am going to conclude that since she said she supports "letting women and their doctors make this decision", that means she supports anyone who decides to kill a 7 pound baby in their womb.

 

[edthecynic]

Um, if you need more than a week or two to figure out you want an abortion in the case of rape or incest, you aren't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

It can take longer than that to miss a period.

 

[g5000]

Um, if you need more than a week or two to figure out you want an abortion in the case of rape or incest, you aren't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

It can take longer than that to miss a period.

It doesn't take 20 weeks.

 

[edthecynic]

I am going to conclude that since she said she supports "letting women and their doctors make this decision", that means she supports anyone who decides to kill a 7 pound baby in their womb.

If the life of the mother is in danger. You prove my point that the dishonest Right ALWAYS leave that part out.
Thank you.

 

[martybegan]

Um, if you need more than a week or two to figure out you want an abortion in the case of rape or incest, you aren't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

It can take longer than that to miss a period.

It doesn't take 20 weeks.

Indeed.

 

[martybegan]

Um, if you need more than a week or two to figure out you want an abortion in the case of rape or incest, you aren't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

It can take longer than that to miss a period.

At most its 4-6 weeks, after than you have another 14 weeks to figure it out. That's more than 3 MONTHS.

 

[edthecynic]

Um, if you need more than a week or two to figure out you want an abortion in the case of rape or incest, you aren't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

It can take longer than that to miss a period.

It doesn't take 20 weeks.

But it could take a number of weeks past the point where you know for certain you are pregnant to sort out mentally whether you will carry your rapist's baby to term. Not everyone is as cold and calculating as a CON$ervative.

 

[martybegan]

Um, if you need more than a week or two to figure out you want an abortion in the case of rape or incest, you aren't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

It can take longer than that to miss a period.

It doesn't take 20 weeks.

But it could take a number of weeks past the point where you know for certain you are pregnant to sort out mentally whether you will carry your rapist's baby to term. Not everyone is as cold and calculating as a CON$ervative.

Again, 3 MONTHS. I can accept the IDLH exception, but rape incest...;. make up your freaking mind earlier.

 

[edthecynic]

Um, if you need more than a week or two to figure out you want an abortion in the case of rape or incest, you aren't the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

It can take longer than that to miss a period.

At most its 4-6 weeks, after than you have another 14 weeks to figure it out. That's more than 3 MONTHS.

Suppose you find late in the term that your rapist's baby will have a severe handicap, should the mother be forced to shoulder this additional burden on top of the burden of raising a child alone with the GOP threatening to deny government assistance to these "welfare queens?"

 

[Darkwind]

Rand Paul: I'll Answer Your Wedge-Issue Question About Abortion, The Moment You Ask Debbie Wasserman-Schultz if It's Okay to "Kill a Seven-Pound Baby That Isn't Born Yet"

“Here’s an answer,” said Schultz. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”

Is this an actual quote, or are you just projecting?

Obviously you feel Schultz put Ayn Rand Paul in her place or you wouldn't be challenging the quote.

Rand Paul Go Ask the DNC About Abortion - Bloomberg Politics

UPDATE: After this item was published, the Democratic National Committee sent Bloomberg News a statement from party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

"Here’s an answer," said Schultz. "I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ’shushing’ me."

So, she dodged the question....

 

[g5000]

I am going to conclude that since she said she supports "letting women and their doctors make this decision", that means she supports anyone who decides to kill a 7 pound baby in their womb.

If the life of the mother is in danger. You prove my point that the dishonest Right ALWAYS leave that part out.
Thank you.

The question did not say "if the life of the mother is in danger". You prove my point the Left ALWAYS distorts, prevaricates, and equivocates. Thank you.

 

[g5000]

So, she dodged the question....

Completely.

She cannot answer directly whether or not she supports someone killing a 7 pound baby in the womb.

Funny how they expect a pro-lifer to answer the question about rape and incest, but they can't answer about a 7 pound baby in the womb with no conditions attached. They want to foist the responsibility for the question off on someone else.