1 2 4 Next
Topic: Who’s Afraid of Rand Paul?
Kleisto's photo
Fri 05/21/10 03:52 PM
Edited by Kleisto on Fri 05/21/10 03:53 PM



U made a great point!! Most people dont realize the MOST dangerous people are ones who have guns that shouldnt!!! any idiot can buy a gun and randomlly kill at will!! I own 2 guns from my past years of hunting, and keep them locked away!! Guns kill people period leave it up to the professional law inforcement agencies to inforce it, NOT amature gun happy saps that will shoot , first and ask questions later!!



Oh yeh, leave it up to the government to protect you. laugh laugh laugh

Good luck with that when the crap hits the fan, (like at Katrina.)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. (Haven't you heard?)

Besides, a criminal should be deathly afraid of those "amateur gun happy saps." And you can bet they are.

Look at the facts. You can place your life in the hands of the police if you want. ... but what if the police are evil? ...what if the police are not there when you need them?





Oh jeez, I guess we just gott shoot first and ask questions later!! My dear in my nieghborhood Ud better hope the are around cause even if U had a gun, U would be taken down in a heartbeat!!! They know U would hesitate to shoot, then theyd have your gun and then U AND U DONT wanna know what they would do to U!!!


Well I don't want to have to "hope" that a cop will be there when I need one. In my small town we only have a couple of cops and a few sheriff officers. They are not well trained either, in my opinion.

Secondly, no one should underestimate whether I might "hesitate" to shoot. I don't believe in pointing a gun at anyone unless I intend to use it - if I need to or if I am in fear of my life. A person in fear of their life is liable to pull the trigger out of shear terror.

Also, I live in Colorado where we have a "make my day" law. Anyone breaking into my house is fair game. I can shoot them...legally. Don't think I wouldn't given the right circumstances.

Lastly you spell "U" YOU. This is a forum, not a cell phone. laugh laugh :tongue:









As an addendum to this, the day that people fear the cops, as opposed to trust them to help us, is the day the cops have more power then they ever should have had. Folks, we are living in that day right now.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You give anyone more power then they need, you can be assured it'll likely be abused. That's what you have now in society.


Lpdon's photo
Fri 05/21/10 03:59 PM

Tuesday’s election results were pretty good for progressives. The retirement of that windbag chameleon Sen. Arlen Specter is long overdue, and pro-labor forces were able to push Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a runoff in Arkansas. Even the big tea party win in Kentucky has its bright side.

Count me as one lefty liberal who is not the least bit unhappy with the victory by Rand Paul in Kentucky’s Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. Not because it might make it easier for some Democratic Party hack to win in the general, but rather because he seems to be a principled libertarian in the mold of his father, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and we need more of that impulse in the Congress. What’s wrong with cutting back big government that mostly exists to serve the interests of big corporations? Surely it would be better if that challenge came from populist progressives of the left, in the Bernie Sanders mold, but this is Kentucky we’re talking about.

Rand Paul, like his dad, is worthy of praise for standing in opposition to the Wall Street bailout, which will come to be marked as the greatest swindle in U.S. history and which was, as he noted on his website, an unconstitutional redistribution of income in favor of the undeserving rich:

“Federal bailouts reward inefficient and corrupt management, rob taxpayers, hurt smaller and more responsible private firms, exacerbate our budget problems, explode national debt, and destroy our U.S. dollar. Even more importantly, any bailout of private industry is in direct violation of the Constitution. It is a transfer of wealth from those who have earned to those who have squandered.”

Of course the joker in the deck is the word principled before libertarian, and, as many online commentators have noted, Rand Paul is a bit more inclined to waffle on an interventionist foreign policy than is his father. While he would have insisted on a declaration of war before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, he argues that Afghanistan, where the 9/11 attack was planned, was a legitimate target but that Iraq was not. In either case, as he insists correctly, a congressional declaration of war was constitutionally required:

“If I had been in the U.S. Senate I would have stopped them and said no more, we will have a vote. We will declare war with Afghanistan. We will declare war with Iraq. I would have voted for a declaration of war with Afghanistan but I would have voted against a declaration of war with Iraq. But I would have made them vote. And that’s the problem, they no longer pay attention to the rules.”
In any case, his Republican establishment opponent, Trey Grayson, attacked Paul for his opposition to an interventionist foreign policy as well as for favoring the legalization of marijuana, and on both counts it is a good sign that Kentucky voters rejected those lines of attack.

True, to wax warmly about a potential Republican libertarian senator is an act of desperation for a liberal who still hopes that the federal government might be moved by the embattled band of progressive Democrats in Congress to put the power of the federal government at the service of the needy. But when has that happened recently? With a commanding Democratic majority in Congress and a former community organizer as president, the focus of economic policy in this time of enormous economic pain has been on saving the bankers who created this mess.

With the Democrats trusting our well-being to the likes of Lawrence Summers and Timothy Geithner, who under President Bill Clinton did so much to enable Wall Street greed, would it not be good to have at least one Republican senator questioning the Washington spending spree? Yes, Rand Paul is bad on a lot of social issues I care about, and no, I don’t embrace his faith in the social compassion of unfettered free markets. But the alternative we have experienced is not one of a progressive government properly restraining free-market greed but rather, as was amply demonstrated in the pretend regulation of the oil industry, of government as a partner in corporate crime. It is the power of the corporate lobbyists that is at issue, and it is refreshing that candidate Paul has labeled Washington lobbyists a “distinctly criminal class” and favors a ban on lobbying and campaign contributions by those who hold more than a million dollars in federal contracts.

Heresy, I know, but it is only thanks to Ron Paul, the father and hopefully the mentor of the potential Kentucky senator, that we got a congressional mandate to audit the Fed’s role in the banking bailout. How bad could it be to have another irascible Paul in the Congress?
_______


About author
Robert Scheer is the editor of Truthdig. rscheer@truthdig.com
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-scheer/28873/who-s-afraid-of-rand-paul


You realikze that Bernie Sanders is a outspoken Communist right? He happily admits it........

msharmony's photo
Fri 05/21/10 04:07 PM
Edited by msharmony on Fri 05/21/10 04:09 PM
Dont know who Bernie Sanders is,,but from freerepublic.com a quote
** begin copy
Bernie Sanders said in a telephone interview, "I will be running as an independent. But if you're asking my philosophy, yes, I am a Democratic Socialist."

Sanders explains that he considers himself a socialist rather than a liberal because, "I approach politics primarily through economic perspectives. My major concern right now is that we have the most unfair distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth (and an) equally unfair distribution of political power. I want to see that change. I want to see a more egalitarian society."

** end copy

so I then look up the difference between socialism, communism, and democracy


and found this from cia.gov

Communist - a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single - often authoritarian - party holds power; state controls are imposed with the elimination of private ownership of property or capital while claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people (i.e., a classless society).

Socialism - a government in which the means of planning, producing, and distributing goods is controlled by a central government that theoretically seeks a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor; in actuality, most socialist governments have ended up being no more than dictatorships over workers by a ruling elite.

Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.


,,,,just throwing out information,,,we all can take from it what we will...



oh and the definition of egalitarianism, from webster.com

1 : a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2 : a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people



no photo
Fri 05/21/10 05:20 PM




U made a great point!! Most people dont realize the MOST dangerous people are ones who have guns that shouldnt!!! any idiot can buy a gun and randomlly kill at will!! I own 2 guns from my past years of hunting, and keep them locked away!! Guns kill people period leave it up to the professional law inforcement agencies to inforce it, NOT amature gun happy saps that will shoot , first and ask questions later!!



Oh yeh, leave it up to the government to protect you. laugh laugh laugh

Good luck with that when the crap hits the fan, (like at Katrina.)

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. (Haven't you heard?)

Besides, a criminal should be deathly afraid of those "amateur gun happy saps." And you can bet they are.

Look at the facts. You can place your life in the hands of the police if you want. ... but what if the police are evil? ...what if the police are not there when you need them?



U look like U are doing OK!! jeez, I guess we just gott shoot first and ask questions later!! My dear in my nieghborhood Ud better hope the are around cause even if U had a gun, U would be taken down in a heartbeat!!! They know U would hesitate to shoot, then theyd have your gun and then U AND U DONT wanna know what they would do to U!!!


Well I don't want to have to "hope" that a cop will be there when I need one. In my small town we only have a couple of cops and a few sheriff officers. They are not well trained either, in my opinion.

Secondly, no one should underestimate whether I might "hesitate" to shoot. I don't believe in pointing a gun at anyone unless I intend to use it - if I need to or if I am in fear of my life. A person in fear of their life is liable to pull the trigger out of shear terror.

Also, I live in Colorado where we have a "make my day" law. Anyone breaking into my house is fair game. I can shoot them...legally. Don't think I wouldn't given the right circumstances.

Lastly you spell "U" YOU. This is a forum, not a cell phone. laugh laugh :tongue:









As an addendum to this, the day that people fear the cops, as opposed to trust them to help us, is the day the cops have more power then they ever should have had. Folks, we are living in that day right now.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You give anyone more power then they need, you can be assured it'll likely be abused. That's what you have now in society.


HMMMMMMM, U should move to Iran or North korea, U dont look like U are homeless and have a comfortable life!!!We have the greasted country on earth, (hope ya dont choke on thet tea!!!)

no photo
Fri 05/21/10 05:31 PM

" ... HMMMMMMM, U should move to Iran or North korea, U dont look like U are homeless and have a comfortable life!!!We have the greasted country on earth, (hope ya dont choke on thet tea!!!) ... "


Wow. From the banal to the incomprehensible in one swell foop ... amazing.

no photo
Fri 05/21/10 05:44 PM


" ... HMMMMMMM, U should move to Iran or North korea, U dont look like U are homeless and have a comfortable life!!!We have the greasted country on earth, (hope ya dont choke on thet tea!!!) ... "


Wow. From the banal to the incomprehensible in one swell foop ... amazing.
And another FOX commen tater! ( That was on purpose!!) I bet u thought U thought banal was { lady just read this and laughed) U meant anal!! THIS IS ours for the next 3 years, maybe Rush will have died from a pill O.D. before that!noway :wink:

no photo
Fri 05/21/10 05:46 PM


" ... HMMMMMMM, U should move to Iran or North korea, U dont look like U are homeless and have a comfortable life!!!We have the greasted country on earth, (hope ya dont choke on thet tea!!!) ... "


Wow. From the banal to the incomprehensible in one swell foop ... amazing.
Now U can only go Foop before bed!!! Or remember those depends!! Good luck on the rest of the forums, U gonna get eaten alive!!:banana: :banana:

peppydog50's photo
Fri 05/21/10 05:48 PM
Anyone that Palin would endorse I would want to vote the opposite way because she is a nut job.

no photo
Fri 05/21/10 05:51 PM

Anyone that Palin would endorse I would want to vote the opposite way because she is a nut job.
Amen to that!! and she is the best they have? Thank God for nut cases, she cant even spell her name right!!!:banana: :banana:

msharmony's photo
Fri 05/21/10 05:56 PM
sorry that Im this bored,,lol

but I have to disagree here,,,,not that Palin seems kind of,, well... loopy/spokesmodelish

I agree that she does

but I do think that people with some opposing views may have some similar views as well,,,its possible that someone I wouldnt vote for might endorse someone else whom I would vote for

for instance, I would not have voted for Sharpton, but I absolutely support/supported OBama,, who was also endorsed by Sharpton.

1 2 4 Next