Rand Paul to FOX News: If feds want more folks vaccinated, President Biden should take his mask off and burn it on TV

[rightwinger]

Choose whether or not you should spread your diseases?

Your presumption is laughably stupid and uninformed.

What choice do you think you get when it comes to spreading germs?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

What choice do you think you get when it comes to spreading germs?

Do you think wearing a mask guarantees you are placing a road block in front of all covid virus'?
Fauci doesn't think that. Why do you?
A face mask is like a cyclone fence to a microscopic covid virus. And a covid virus is like a baby squirrel, comparatively speaking.

So how many squirrels are unable to pass in and out of that fence?

 

[rightwinger]

What choice do you think you get when it comes to spreading germs?

Do you think wearing a mask guarantees you are placing a road block in front of all covid virus'?
Fauci doesn't think that. Why do you?
A face mask is like a cyclone fence to a microscopic covid virus. And a covid virus is like a baby squirrel, comparatively speaking.

So how many squirrels are unable to pass in and out of that fence?

Why do you keep presenting the same debunked misinformation?

The COVID virus is microscopic, but the particles of spit that the virus is carried in is not. The mask prevents you from spraying your spit

Happy now?

 

[Juicin]

It's a fair argument except it would lead to people having to prove they have had the vaccine. If a business doesn't want people in who have not how otherwise do they accomplish that other than make all wear a mask?

No you wouldn't....

The people who want the vaccine can get it.

The rest of us just take the same risks we always did. If you're so immuno compromised you're worried about the rona....Anything could kill you there will never be enough vaccinations

If those who don't want people in to their business without being vaccinated, how do they accomplish this?

You can't

We have medical privacy laws

Only places you can ask for vaccination proof it school and employment. Domestically there is no way to do it. Pretty much only enforced for children

And these are experimental vaccines no one would be obligated to take it even to fight off a plague much lesa a cold

They can't even ask. It's an experimental drug under EUA.

They can ask at a school

Question is can they force you to take it

Employment and education are the two most common places Americans give up health privacy rights

 

[MarcATL]

Because masks represent unquestioned and senseless submission to authority.

The same reasons why quislings like you love them.

Is that the same authority as when interacting with an angry cop? Is that the type of authority you're encouraging us not to submit to?

 

[pknopp]

It's a fair argument except it would lead to people having to prove they have had the vaccine. If a business doesn't want people in who have not how otherwise do they accomplish that other than make all wear a mask?

No you wouldn't....

The people who want the vaccine can get it.

The rest of us just take the same risks we always did. If you're so immuno compromised you're worried about the rona....Anything could kill you there will never be enough vaccinations

If those who don't want people in to their business without being vaccinated, how do they accomplish this?

You can't

We have medical privacy laws

Only places you can ask for vaccination proof it school and employment. Domestically there is no way to do it. Pretty much only enforced for children

And these are experimental vaccines no one would be obligated to take it even to fight off a plague much lesa a cold

So for those concerned, masks it will be.

Masks don't change your risk profile at all

Which is why we don't use them and they will not be legally enforceable mandates

They increase risk of lung infection as well

The law is about to come down hard on you crazy rona *****. When asked to provide evidence you're not going to have any....

Perhaps so but if someone wants to wear one that nothing to do with me and none of my business.

 

[pknopp]

Why the FUK is Rand Paul such a whiny little ***** about masks?

Because masks represent unquestioned and senseless submission to authority.

The same reasons why quislings like you love them.

There is no possibility that there are people who simply want to take precautions to keep a virus from spreading?

Would sneezing into your sleeve also simply be a submission to authority?

Those who want to wear a mask should not be prevented from doing so.

Those who don't want to wear a mask should not be prevented.

Let us all choose.

Unless we are speaking of a private business, I agree. (and yes I believe a business shouldn't have to bake a gay cake either).

If you do not want to go to that business, just the same as I would not the business that doesn't want to bake the cake you do not have to.

 

[marvin martian]

Why the FUK is Rand Paul such a whiny little ***** about masks?

Because he understands science in a way you never will, you fascist ****.

 

[pknopp]

At least Paul is consistent at being an idiot.

He is quite desperate to be president. There are things I agree with him on but I'll not vote for anyone this desperate to be president.

I don't think he is desperate to be president. . . I think you are just intelligent enough to pick out one of the most sane, responsible folks in that slimy town, and confuse it with a desire for power.

He is one of the few that wants to take the car keys away from the maddeningly irresponsible crowd. . . and you call that desperate?

. . . all those idiots need a babysitter.

View attachment 482795

Trump made Paul look foolish in the debates. I believe it was where Trump won. When asked if you would support a candidate even if you disagreed with their policies would you, Paul answered yes. Trump answered no. It was one of the things I give Trump props for.

Paul and Christie were usually next to each other on the stage and they agreed on very little. How do you support someone that you don't agree on hardly anything about? You do so to appease the masters so they will let you be president. Except it backfired that time.

 

[Rye Catcher]

He's like Ayn Rand, pisses and moans about everything until he needs it. Then it's okay for him, but no one else.

Sure he is (like your imaginary characterization of Rand Paul).

Yep, he sure is.

I wonder though, have you been accused of imaging that Donald Trump is not corrupt, and that he is worthy of every holding an office of trust again?

 

[MisterBeale]

At least Paul is consistent at being an idiot.

He is quite desperate to be president. There are things I agree with him on but I'll not vote for anyone this desperate to be president.

I don't think he is desperate to be president. . . I think you are just intelligent enough to pick out one of the most sane, responsible folks in that slimy town, and confuse it with a desire for power.

He is one of the few that wants to take the car keys away from the maddeningly irresponsible crowd. . . and you call that desperate?

. . . all those idiots need a babysitter.

View attachment 482795

Trump made Paul look foolish in the debates. I believe it was where Trump won. When asked if you would support a candidate even if you disagreed with their policies would you, Paul answered yes. Trump answered no. It was one of the things I give Trump props for.

Paul and Christie were usually next to each other on the stage and they agreed on very little. How do you support someone that you don't agree on hardly anything about? You do so to appease the masters so they will let you be president. Except it backfired that time.

Honestly, I can't believe you.

SO now you fault Paul for telling the truth and congratulate Trump for telling the people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it is the truth?

. . . ah well, given your stance on a myriad of issues?


. . . I supposed I should not be at all surprised, should I?

 

[pknopp]

At least Paul is consistent at being an idiot.

He is quite desperate to be president. There are things I agree with him on but I'll not vote for anyone this desperate to be president.

I don't think he is desperate to be president. . . I think you are just intelligent enough to pick out one of the most sane, responsible folks in that slimy town, and confuse it with a desire for power.

He is one of the few that wants to take the car keys away from the maddeningly irresponsible crowd. . . and you call that desperate?

. . . all those idiots need a babysitter.

View attachment 482795

Trump made Paul look foolish in the debates. I believe it was where Trump won. When asked if you would support a candidate even if you disagreed with their policies would you, Paul answered yes. Trump answered no. It was one of the things I give Trump props for.

Paul and Christie were usually next to each other on the stage and they agreed on very little. How do you support someone that you don't agree on hardly anything about? You do so to appease the masters so they will let you be president. Except it backfired that time.

Honestly, I can't believe you.

SO now you fault Paul for telling the truth and congratulate Trump for telling the people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it is the truth?

. . . ah well, given your stance on a myriad of issues?


. . . I supposed I should not be at all surprised, should I?

What people wanted to hear? I spoke for myself. I believe that is where he won the election.

 

[rightwinger]

Why the FUK is Rand Paul such a whiny little ***** about masks?

Because he understands science in a way you never will, you fascist ****.

Evidently not
Credible infectious disease experts say masks work

But Rand Paul is an Optometrist so I guess he knows better

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why the FUK is Rand Paul such a whiny little ***** about masks?

Because masks represent unquestioned and senseless submission to authority.

The same reasons why quislings like you love them.

Why are Conservatives such whiny little bitches?

Its just a mask. Children don’t whine as much as Conservatives
They work. People around the world accept that they work.

Why are Conservatives such douchebags?

Why are you such a whiny little *****? Liberals like you get offended and upset about everything us conservatives do!

Go look in the mirror, you clueless hack.

 

[MisterBeale]

At least Paul is consistent at being an idiot.

He is quite desperate to be president. There are things I agree with him on but I'll not vote for anyone this desperate to be president.

I don't think he is desperate to be president. . . I think you are just intelligent enough to pick out one of the most sane, responsible folks in that slimy town, and confuse it with a desire for power.

He is one of the few that wants to take the car keys away from the maddeningly irresponsible crowd. . . and you call that desperate?

. . . all those idiots need a babysitter.

View attachment 482795

Trump made Paul look foolish in the debates. I believe it was where Trump won. When asked if you would support a candidate even if you disagreed with their policies would you, Paul answered yes. Trump answered no. It was one of the things I give Trump props for.

Paul and Christie were usually next to each other on the stage and they agreed on very little. How do you support someone that you don't agree on hardly anything about? You do so to appease the masters so they will let you be president. Except it backfired that time.

Honestly, I can't believe you.

SO now you fault Paul for telling the truth and congratulate Trump for telling the people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it is the truth?

. . . ah well, given your stance on a myriad of issues?


. . . I supposed I should not be at all surprised, should I?

What people wanted to hear? I spoke for myself. I believe that is where he won the election.

You stated, "He is quite desperate to be president."


Now? If that were indeed what motivated his statements, and his behavior, he would be telling folks what they WANT to hear, not what they NEED to hear. Sometimes, politicians DO support folks that hold views that we do not, it is called coalition building.

. . . and yet, you launch into a digression where you compare him unfavorably to Trump, where, for the last four, five years, you have been bitching about Trump's demagoguery, and somehow want me to believe, NOW, of all times, that Trump is the better medicine for the Republic than Paul?

 

[pknopp]

At least Paul is consistent at being an idiot.

He is quite desperate to be president. There are things I agree with him on but I'll not vote for anyone this desperate to be president.

I don't think he is desperate to be president. . . I think you are just intelligent enough to pick out one of the most sane, responsible folks in that slimy town, and confuse it with a desire for power.

He is one of the few that wants to take the car keys away from the maddeningly irresponsible crowd. . . and you call that desperate?

. . . all those idiots need a babysitter.

View attachment 482795

Trump made Paul look foolish in the debates. I believe it was where Trump won. When asked if you would support a candidate even if you disagreed with their policies would you, Paul answered yes. Trump answered no. It was one of the things I give Trump props for.

Paul and Christie were usually next to each other on the stage and they agreed on very little. How do you support someone that you don't agree on hardly anything about? You do so to appease the masters so they will let you be president. Except it backfired that time.

Honestly, I can't believe you.

SO now you fault Paul for telling the truth and congratulate Trump for telling the people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it is the truth?

. . . ah well, given your stance on a myriad of issues?


. . . I supposed I should not be at all surprised, should I?

What people wanted to hear? I spoke for myself. I believe that is where he won the election.

You stated, "He is quite desperate to be president."


Now? If that were indeed what motivated his statements, and his behavior, he would be telling folks what they WANT to hear, not what they NEED to hear. Sometimes, politicians DO support folks that hold views that we do not, it is called coalition building.

. . . and yet, you launch into a digression where you compare him unfavorably to Trump, where, for the last four, five years, you have been bitching about Trump's demagoguery, and somehow want me to believe, NOW, of all times, that Trump is the better medicine for the Republic than Paul?

I compared this act as unfavorable to Trump's. We should note, I have never supported Trump nor have I voted for him. That does not mean I have to pick positions based upon how it affects one's politics. I thought it good that he said he wouldn't support a candidate regardless of their positions. Why should anyone agree to support someone where they do not agree with what they support?

 

[MisterBeale]

At least Paul is consistent at being an idiot.

He is quite desperate to be president. There are things I agree with him on but I'll not vote for anyone this desperate to be president.

I don't think he is desperate to be president. . . I think you are just intelligent enough to pick out one of the most sane, responsible folks in that slimy town, and confuse it with a desire for power.

He is one of the few that wants to take the car keys away from the maddeningly irresponsible crowd. . . and you call that desperate?

. . . all those idiots need a babysitter.

View attachment 482795

Trump made Paul look foolish in the debates. I believe it was where Trump won. When asked if you would support a candidate even if you disagreed with their policies would you, Paul answered yes. Trump answered no. It was one of the things I give Trump props for.

Paul and Christie were usually next to each other on the stage and they agreed on very little. How do you support someone that you don't agree on hardly anything about? You do so to appease the masters so they will let you be president. Except it backfired that time.

Honestly, I can't believe you.

SO now you fault Paul for telling the truth and congratulate Trump for telling the people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it is the truth?

. . . ah well, given your stance on a myriad of issues?


. . . I supposed I should not be at all surprised, should I?

What people wanted to hear? I spoke for myself. I believe that is where he won the election.

You stated, "He is quite desperate to be president."


Now? If that were indeed what motivated his statements, and his behavior, he would be telling folks what they WANT to hear, not what they NEED to hear. Sometimes, politicians DO support folks that hold views that we do not, it is called coalition building.

. . . and yet, you launch into a digression where you compare him unfavorably to Trump, where, for the last four, five years, you have been bitching about Trump's demagoguery, and somehow want me to believe, NOW, of all times, that Trump is the better medicine for the Republic than Paul?

I compared this act as unfavorable to Trump's. We should note, I have never supported Trump nor have I voted for him. That does not mean I have to pick positions based upon how it affects one's politics. I thought it good that he said he wouldn't support a candidate regardless of their positions. Why should anyone agree to support someone where they do not agree with what they support?

In order to get something from them that you want. Duh.

Here is a good example;

The original Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976 on September 30 by the House of Representatives with a 312–93 vote to override the veto of a funding bill for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).[4][5][6][7] It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois.[3]

Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you are a leftist big government type, certainly you would be against the Hyde Amendment. . . OTH? IF it meant that moderates or moderate right folks would release fund for the Department of Health and Human Services? Then you compromise.

There are lots and lots of other examples of compromise in government. None too recent, as that sort of governing, compromise & incrementalism, has been frowned on in the age of Obama and Trump.

 

[pknopp]

At least Paul is consistent at being an idiot.

He is quite desperate to be president. There are things I agree with him on but I'll not vote for anyone this desperate to be president.

I don't think he is desperate to be president. . . I think you are just intelligent enough to pick out one of the most sane, responsible folks in that slimy town, and confuse it with a desire for power.

He is one of the few that wants to take the car keys away from the maddeningly irresponsible crowd. . . and you call that desperate?

. . . all those idiots need a babysitter.

View attachment 482795

Trump made Paul look foolish in the debates. I believe it was where Trump won. When asked if you would support a candidate even if you disagreed with their policies would you, Paul answered yes. Trump answered no. It was one of the things I give Trump props for.

Paul and Christie were usually next to each other on the stage and they agreed on very little. How do you support someone that you don't agree on hardly anything about? You do so to appease the masters so they will let you be president. Except it backfired that time.

Honestly, I can't believe you.

SO now you fault Paul for telling the truth and congratulate Trump for telling the people what they want to hear, regardless of whether it is the truth?

. . . ah well, given your stance on a myriad of issues?


. . . I supposed I should not be at all surprised, should I?

What people wanted to hear? I spoke for myself. I believe that is where he won the election.

You stated, "He is quite desperate to be president."


Now? If that were indeed what motivated his statements, and his behavior, he would be telling folks what they WANT to hear, not what they NEED to hear. Sometimes, politicians DO support folks that hold views that we do not, it is called coalition building.

. . . and yet, you launch into a digression where you compare him unfavorably to Trump, where, for the last four, five years, you have been bitching about Trump's demagoguery, and somehow want me to believe, NOW, of all times, that Trump is the better medicine for the Republic than Paul?

I compared this act as unfavorable to Trump's. We should note, I have never supported Trump nor have I voted for him. That does not mean I have to pick positions based upon how it affects one's politics. I thought it good that he said he wouldn't support a candidate regardless of their positions. Why should anyone agree to support someone where they do not agree with what they support?

In order to get something from them that you want. Duh.

Here is a good example;

The original Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976 on September 30 by the House of Representatives with a 312–93 vote to override the veto of a funding bill for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW).[4][5][6][7] It was named for its chief sponsor, Republican Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois.[3]

Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you are a leftist big government type, certainly you would be against the Hyde Amendment. . . OTH? IF it meant that moderates or moderate right folks would release fund for the Department of Health and Human Services? Then you compromise.

There are lots and lots of other examples of compromise in government. None too recent, as that sort of governing, compromise & incrementalism, has been frowned on in the age of Obama and Trump.

I disagree. As I noted, Paul and Christie rarely agreed on anything. I see no reason to support someone you disagree with 90% of the time in the hope you might agree with something later on.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

At least Paul is consistent at being an idiot.

A lot like yourself . So I guess you got a lot in common . Voting R next time?

 

[basquebromance]