WTF moment: Rand Paul willing to cooperate with President Obama

[Statistikhengst]

You really are stupid Boop. Maybe you should do some research.


Convenience Store Clerks' Jobs Among The Most Dangerous - Daily Press

Now is probably a good time to point out that is has been confirmed that I am not a sock, that Connery has confirmed this twice, that we are not in the flame zone and that constantly calling a member a sock is a form of harassment. Either you are smart enough to realize that or you are not. But this will be the final warning from me to you - no other warnings will follow. Every time you call me a sock, I will report it. Every single time. I am not the same person as [MENTION=31258]BDBoop[/MENTION] and it is about time for you to finally get this through your head. This issue will now be permanently laid to rest, either one way, or the other. End of story.

[MENTION=36528]cereal_killer[/MENTION] [MENTION=20285]Intense[/MENTION] [MENTION=40540]Connery[/MENTION]

I reported him yesterday. It's harassment, and I find no reason to tolerate it.

Yepp.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you agree with somebody on something why wouldn't you work together on it?

 

[Statistikhengst]

If you agree with somebody on something why wouldn't you work together on it?

Sounds reasonable to me. Sounds like Rand Paul wants to be reasonable. Oh, and he is running for President in 2016.

 

[Stephanie]

Well good luck to paul trying to work with a thug who let our government be shut down than compromise...and then proceeded to shut down our war memorials off from our vets, our National and state parks off to we the people, etc

but it's has the op in thrills like Chrissy (tingles)Matthews

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you agree with somebody on something why wouldn't you work together on it?

Sounds reasonable to me. Sounds like Rand Paul wants to be reasonable. Oh, and he is running for President in 2016.

Of course he is, and I have no doubt he'll take many terrible positions in an effort to be successful. Regardless, the notion that cooperation in and of itself is bad makes no sense to me.

 

[BDBoop]

Paul says cooperation possible with Obama on 2014 policy agenda - NBC Politics

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a potential contender for 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said cooperation with President Barack Obama is possible this year on infrastructure and immigration, if the efforts are limited and don’t aim to be comprehensive.

Obama will sketch out his agenda for 2014 when he delivers his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night.

“The president and I don’t agree on every issue, but if you took ten issues, I think there are two or three that we agree on… and why don’t we go after the issues that we agree on?” Paul said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

He said on immigration reform, “We don’t agree on the whole comprehensive package with the Democrats, but I’ll bet you about half of it we agree on. The question is: are we willing to narrow our focus and go after things that we can agree to and get them done, or are we going to stay so polarized that we always have to have our way or the highway?”...

Probably good to remember that Sen. Paul is the JUNIOR Senator from KY.

Wonder what our TP members out there think of this.

Not really sure how that works. Our infrastructure as a whole is in need of serious work. Doesn't that reality in and of itself mean that comprehensive is the word for what needs to happen next? Limited to what. Overpasses and bridges where death is a possibility o just any day now?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Paul says cooperation possible with Obama on 2014 policy agenda - NBC Politics

Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a potential contender for 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said cooperation with President Barack Obama is possible this year on infrastructure and immigration, if the efforts are limited and don’t aim to be comprehensive.

Obama will sketch out his agenda for 2014 when he delivers his State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night.

“The president and I don’t agree on every issue, but if you took ten issues, I think there are two or three that we agree on… and why don’t we go after the issues that we agree on?” Paul said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

He said on immigration reform, “We don’t agree on the whole comprehensive package with the Democrats, but I’ll bet you about half of it we agree on. The question is: are we willing to narrow our focus and go after things that we can agree to and get them done, or are we going to stay so polarized that we always have to have our way or the highway?”...

Probably good to remember that Sen. Paul is the JUNIOR Senator from KY.

Wonder what our TP members out there think of this.

What will he want in return?

Good publicity.
Raising his profile within the Senate.
Looking "presidential" an all that jazz.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sounds logical to me. Start working on the things you agree on and go from there. Nothing wrong with that.

Too bad more republican and democrat clowns don't adopt this way of doing things. They all think it's better to stomp their feet and point fingers rather than moving to get things done.

But I find it unwise to use false equivalency. One side of the spectrum is FAR more intransigent than the other, has been so since 2009.

"I will not compromise. Ever." -Barack Obama
"We have the votes, fuck 'em"-Rahm Emmanuel

Yeah tell us.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you agree with somebody on something why wouldn't you work together on it?

Because you know they'll fuck you the first chance they get. Bush thought he agreed with Kennedy on a prescription drug benefit and No Child LEft Behind. Then he found himself vilifed by the Democrats for not being generous enough.
You cannot trust Democrats. They are worse than Palestinians. You can only block them and humiliate them at the polls.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If you agree with somebody on something why wouldn't you work together on it?

Because you know they'll fuck you the first chance they get. Bush thought he agreed with Kennedy on a prescription drug benefit and No Child LEft Behind. Then he found himself vilifed by the Democrats for not being generous enough.
You cannot trust Democrats. They are worse than Palestinians. You can only block them and humiliate them at the polls.

That's politics. Each side tries to make everything either the other guys' fault, or their victory. Rand will do the same thing.

 

[Avorysuds]

Judging Rand on a personal interpretation about something he says today, something that has not done nor happened at this point... Yet these same people won;t hold Obama accountable for all the horrible crap he actually has done and is continuously doing.

Sad times for the Democrat party.

 

[Avorysuds]

And how bad at reading are people...


Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a potential contender for 2016 Republican presidential nomination, said cooperation with President Barack Obama is possible this year on infrastructure and immigration, if the efforts are limited and don’t aim to be comprehensive.

He said clearly that he would work on these issues but not treat them as some sort of fucking stimulus plan but rather upkeep.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Sounds logical to me. Start working on the things you agree on and go from there. Nothing wrong with that.

Too bad more republican and democrat clowns don't adopt this way of doing things. They all think it's better to stomp their feet and point fingers rather than moving to get things done.

But I find it unwise to use false equivalency. One side of the spectrum is FAR more intransigent than the other, has been so since 2009.

"I will not compromise. Ever." -Barack Obama
"We have the votes, fuck 'em"-Rahm Emmanuel

Yeah tell us.

Got some links?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rand is making sure that the Dictatorship of the Right is floundering.

Good for him.

 

[zeke]

]If we kep what he said in its proper context,[/B] he was referring to bipartisanship as a whole. And the reason that nothing gets done is because there are tons of injections on issues. Instead of focusing in on a few issues. it's always a negotiations game of give me X, and we'll compromise on Y.

He's saying that the focus should be narrowed to items that agreement, or at least a true negotiation can occur. Instead of stopping bills in their tracks because they are loaded for bare with so much excess shit that no agreement can be made. Then the bickering starts and the politically charged nonsense, such as "obstructionism" begins.

LMAO. You must be pulling someones leg. You mean like the "you didn't build that"
comment the rethugs like to pull out of context and use to trash the president.

Now you all worried about "context". Funny logic you hypocrites like to use.