http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/10/rand-paul-kentucky-senate-poll-/1

Looks like Rand will be winning by a good 9 points.

10/29/2010 3:16:04 AM

suck it bitches. (yes, that is my well thought out, insightful and high minded post for this thread . . . bitches)

11/2/2010 7:09:54 PM

meh, it could be worse.

I don't foresee him kowtowing to tea baggers now that he's actually won.

11/2/2010 8:42:19 PM

bye bye rand paul

11/2/2010 8:45:01 PM

^^you speak as if he isn't a Teabagger himself

11/2/2010 9:03:51 PM

^^^ yeah, that was my feeling about him all along. he was just a republican who rode his father's name and the tea party into office.

11/2/2010 9:35:58 PM

Looks like he stomped his rival pretty handily!

11/2/2010 9:39:10 PM

Truly a victory for unlicensed ophthalmologists everywhere!

11/2/2010 9:50:02 PM

derp

11/2/2010 9:50:02 PM

"There are no rich, there are no middle class, there are no poor--we're all inter-connected."

So libertarian he's communist????

11/2/2010 10:06:04 PM

^ that's not communist, it's a purely non-sensical gibberish statement.

11/2/2010 10:15:59 PM

Quote :

"it's a purely non-sensical gibberish statement. "

We are who we have been waiting for

11/2/2010 10:23:02 PM

Quote :

"I don't foresee him kowtowing to tea baggers now that he's actually won."

I'm a fan of Ron Paul and, despite the fact that he makes a horrible Presidential candidate, I think he has a lot right. I hope Rand follows generally in those footsteps and I'm glad he won, but we'll see.


Still, suck it The proto-libertarian in me is going to relish this one for now.

11/3/2010 12:20:06 AM

Relish it, enjoy the petty win, because even though he's won, libertarians will still have absolutely no impact on national politics, just like they always have, and just like the always will.

11/3/2010 12:24:03 AM

I'd like to see libertarian thinking influence both the Democrats and the Republicans

11/3/2010 12:26:54 AM

^I agree.

I was hoping the teaparty was going to pull repubs that way, and in some ways I think it has, but then it went a little nutty and religious...the opposite of where the party needs to go. imo

11/3/2010 1:15:25 AM

Quote :

"Relish it, enjoy the petty win, because even though he's won, libertarians will still have absolutely no impact on national politics, just like they always have, and just like [they] always will."

So, when that proves wrong and you kill yourself (please), where should I send flowers?

11/3/2010 1:29:32 AM

What is going to change so drastically over the next n years to make him wrong? Like it or not, he is correct..

11/3/2010 12:05:38 PM

^Dude. Come on.

He said "absolutely no impact".
That is ridiculously unsupportable.
Even my farts have a small non-zero impact on national politics.

He didn't say, "libertarians will still have almost no impact on national politics"...
He didn't say, "libertarians will still have no candidates in national office"...

He said "libertarians will still have absolutely no impact on national politics"
Even the most libertarian-hating person you can imagine knows that that is wrong.

Even you said, "What is going to change so drastically..."
Any change, however small, would prove him wrong because, like an idiot, he said "absolutely no impact".
No "drastic" change is necessary for him to proven wrong.

Ever heard the phrase, "Never is a long time"?....
"absolutely no impact" is the same.
(Hint: Whenever you say, "always", "never", "absolutely none", etc. and not, "usually", "almost never", "very little", you are very likely wrong.)

11/3/2010 12:24:36 PM

Fine, libertarians will still have almost no impact on national politics.

11/3/2010 12:26:15 PM

Probably true.

11/3/2010 12:28:34 PM

Three years ago Ron Paul was considered a crackpot. Now people are listening to what he has to say, and his son Rand Paul is now a Senator for 6 years. Libertarianism will have no impact? We'll see.

11/3/2010 1:31:35 PM

The hyperbole was necessary to bring you down to earth.

Quote :

"Three years ago Ron Paul was considered a crackpot. Now people are listening to what he has to say, and his son Rand Paul is now a Senator for 6 years. Libertarianism will have no impact? We'll see."

What's the timeframe? state some goals so I can point out when you don't achieve them.

11/3/2010 6:11:07 PM

goal #1 for you: communism actually succeeds

11/3/2010 6:50:20 PM

that's not really my goal, i don't have a political party

[Edited on November 3, 2010 at 6:52 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2010 6:52:08 PM

lemme rephrase that...

communism actually succeeds at running a country effectively.

11/3/2010 6:57:36 PM

again not my goal, communism is more of a byproduct than a method

11/3/2010 6:59:25 PM

so then your goal is to have fairly poorly run governments? got it

11/3/2010 7:05:56 PM

Libertarians will have an impact only so far as their corporate overlords will allow.

11/3/2010 9:08:37 PM

Deep.

11/3/2010 9:27:44 PM

Apparently it only took less than a week for Rand Paul to flip flop on earmarks following the election.

11/11/2010 5:23:26 AM

^AHAHA

But he'll only take the good earmarks though, I'm sure.

11/11/2010 8:38:39 AM

Ron Paul has always been for earmarks. He has said that's it's better to earmark money that's already been appropriated than to just have it go to the Executive branch or wherever. However, he would also tell you that the money shouldn't have been appropriated in the first place. The opposition to earmarks stems from confusion about the legislative process.

11/11/2010 9:50:05 AM

It's easier to cut money from the budget when it hasn't been earmarked for special interests. Earmarks, while not a sizeable portion of the budget, represent the kind of non-competitive spending and bloated special interests giveaways that Paul says he opposes. Banning earmarks would severely limit the power of Senators to reward their biggest backers, and it would transfer some more resource allocation power to the Executive branch. We just can't have that, it wouldn't be fair, right?
There is a reason that the Dems talked a lot about earmarks back in the day, but once they got in power they didn't do much of anything about them. The temptation of being able to allocate millions to political allies with the stroke of a pen is just too great.

11/11/2010 2:00:45 PM

Money is appropriated before earmarking takes place, though. If one of the Paul's votes against the appropriations bill, and it passes anyway, what are they going to do? Let the money go to someone else's district? No, they're going to try to get scraps back to their constituents. It's not hypocritical in the least.

11/11/2010 2:18:32 PM

If things are NOT earmarked, they just go to the executive branch to spend as they see fit. We need more earmarks. They just need to be transparent about the process.

Earmarking is what the congress is supposed to be doing...

11/11/2010 3:55:38 PM

Non-competitive bids, resource allocation without proper review,earmarks inserted into unrelated bills in order to secure approval from powerful senators, and kickbacks to special interests who helped them get elected is not what congress is supposed to be doing.

I applaud the Republican leadership for listening to voters and practicing what they preach. A self-imposed 2 year ban will go into effect as soon as this week. If Dems had the self-discipline to reject earmarks, as they talked about doing in '06 and '08, perhaps we wouldn't have the scourge of the tea party infecting our Congress now.

11/16/2010 12:58:24 PM

Quote :

"Non-competitive bids, resource allocation without proper review,earmarks inserted into unrelated bills in order to secure approval from powerful senators, and kickbacks to special interests who helped them get elected is not what congress is supposed to be doing."

All an earmark is, is an appropriation. That is precisely what we send people in the house to do...appropriate our tax dollars. I will be the first to agree that the current process that we have for earmarking protects all of that cronyism you mentioned...but it's not the fault of the earmark. It's the fault of the system that a bunch of corrupt assholes put in place.

No money should go unappropriated. Otherwise, it's just going to some unelected bureaucrat in one of our many executive branch departments.

11/16/2010 1:31:02 PM

"John McCain Attacks Rand Paul's 'Isolationism' In Willingness To Cut Defense Spending"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/16/john-mccain-rand-paul-defense-spending_n_783870.html

Quote :

"A prime example, McCain continued, was Rand Paul, Kentucky's next U.S. Senator. "I admire his victory, but ... already he has talked about withdrawals [and] cuts in defense," McCain said."

11/16/2010 11:41:47 PM

The day you equate cutting the military budget at all to isolationism is the day that you should be put in a nursing home.

11/17/2010 1:09:16 AM

Quote :

"No money should go unappropriated. Otherwise, it's just going to some unelected bureaucrat in one of our many executive branch departments."

actually if money is not appropriated it will just sit in the Treasury not need to be borrowed

11/17/2010 1:27:49 AM

I wonder is the republican support for this is just a ploy to make sure bills don't get passed so they can paint Obama as do-nothing next election? Just because they aren't using earmarks doesn't mean they are going to stop wanting them to vote for bills.

11/17/2010 8:50:19 AM

Don't be such a cynical, partisan hack, Moron. It took a lot of self-discipline for the Senate republicans to willingly impose a unilateral ban and cede power to the executive branch. This actually empowers Obama by giving his administration more "power of the purse".

Give credit where credit is due. This is a huge win for both budget hawks and anti-corruption advocates.

11/17/2010 10:06:54 AM

Quote :

"actually if money is not appropriated it will just sit in the Treasury not need to be borrowed"

It always is appropriated though, and then it's up to Congress to determine where it goes.

^Why is ceding power to the Executive branch a good thing? It has too much power as it is. You know what would take courage? Refusing to vote on the appropriations bill. Refusing to vote for anything except a balanced budget. Not appropriating the funds, and then when it comes time to divy it up, just say, "Hey, we'll trust an unaccountable administration to spend this money efficiently."

11/17/2010 12:30:00 PM

bump

3/9/2011 9:00:34 PM

Sooo… is our gov. less corrupt now? is our budget more sane? Have the earmarks been eliminated…?

3/9/2011 9:48:01 PM

Jon Stewart's extended interview with Rand Paul:

Rand Paul says conservatives must admit that there's waste in the military budget.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-7-2011/exclusive---rand-paul-extended-interview-pt--1

Rand Paul doesn't see the banking crisis as a failure of capitalism.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-7-2011/exclusive---rand-paul-extended-interview-pt--2

Rand Paul talks about "creative destruction" and overzealous government.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-7-2011/exclusive---rand-paul-extended-interview-pt--3

3/10/2011 3:20:23 PM

^ Rand Paul seemed pretty lame in that interview to me. He at one point talked about how terrible our current accounting is and how we spend too much and government is too large and taxes are too high, then he talked about how awesome it was that Clinton balanced the budget. Does he not realized how Clinton balanced the budget...?

The interview was chock full of moments were Paul was just parroting a talking point, and he would almost start to think on his own, then swing right back to the talking points once he realized how dumb his own alleged ideology was.

3/10/2011 6:13:40 PM

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/05/rand_paul_takes_bite_of_burger_hears_questioner_is_a_dreamer_flees_while.html?wpsrc=fol_tw

8/5/2014 5:49:20 PM

If only she were a lobbyist for a wealthy donor trying to get away with shirking tax responsibility, shafting employees, or destroying the environment.

8/5/2014 6:13:18 PM