6 ms·

>There is little else of Rand Paul worth paying for. Anytime either of the Paul's do something great that hits the news (many times a year), the armchair pundi

by pvnick 13y ago

>There is little else of Rand Paul worth paying for. Anytime either of the Paul's do something great that hits the news (many times a year), the armchair pundits on the internet make vague references to everything else they do which makes them not worth voting for. Some of the only people in congress who'll stand by their values and whom you know from what to expect. It's contrarian bullshit and I'm sick of it.

ebbv 13y ago
Ron Paul and Rand Paul are corporatists. They happen to be right on a couple of issues but they are wrong on almost everything else. A list of things they are wrong on: - Civil rights : The Pauls have long been against the Civil Rights act though they recently pretend they aren't. - Environmental regulation : They want none. Our major cities would look like those terrible pictures/video from China. Some of you may be too young to remember but the LA smog of the 80s was pretty bad. - Finance regulation : They want none, basically. The practices that caused the crash of 2008 haven't been stopped (and actually China is headed for a much, much bigger real estate crash which could make 2008 look mild.) We need regulation to provide a stable economy. See: Elizabeth Warren's many interviews on this subject. - Right to choose : They are against a woman's right to choose. - Equal pay : They are against equal pay for equal work laws. - Food inspection : They are against food inspection and want to rely on the free market to protect us from bad chicken and bean sprouts. - Health care : Again, they want a totally free market system where poor people are basically told "Good luck, sucker!" - Worker's rights : Never mind unions, the Pauls are against such simple things as safety regulations, laws requiring lunch breaks, time off, etc. for full time workers. All workers would be at the mercy of their employers. Which might sound great if you've only ever worked white collar jobs, but try go working delivering car parts or something. - Immigration : As part of their overall isolationist viewpoint, they are not going to treat the millions of illegal immigrants like human beings. It's not "contrarian bullshit", it's people who actually pay attention pointing out that being right twice a day doesn't make a good clock. EDIT: Because apparently I have to do all the work, I've added WHY they're wrong on all these issues. You may disagree with my viewpoints, but the point of this comment is to show I have well considered reasons for not liking them.
- pvnick 13y ago
  Your post contains zero information apart from "Here's a bunch of talking points. You go research them" Edit: Ebbv recently changed his post to elaborate on his points, so while his argument now basically boils down to "I'm a hardline liberal and this is where the Pauls and I differ," my post is no longer relevant.
  - ebbv 13y ago
    I didn't think it was too much to ask that if you were defending him you'd know his stance on those issues. But I clarified for you since you asked.
  - smutticus 13y ago
    All I learned from your two posts was that you are very angry. ebbv is listing actual positions of the Pauls on various issues. If you think he's wrong then call him out on them.
    - rubikscube 13y ago
      His points aren't even written coherently, but are slogans. e.g. "right to choose" and "They are against equal pay for equal work laws." He would have to demonstrate where Ron Paul and Rand Paul stated they are for inequality of pay for equal work. When you look at the issues, they aren't the same thing the juvenile slogans make them out to be.
      - dram 13y ago
        He's writing as if they are against all these ideas, as opposed to being against that particular policy or implementation for a solution. Also the issues are a lot more nuanced.
      - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
        Unfortunately, Paul wasn't in the Senate for their 2009 vote on Ledbetter. But, do you honestly think that someone who opposes anti-segregation laws because they 'tell business what to do' would have voted for an equal pay bill?
mikeash 13y ago
Rand Paul is a conspiracy nut who thinks the UN is going to take away our guns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/rand-paul-obama-is-working-with-anti-american-globalists-plotting-against-our-constitution/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/r... "You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies...." It frightens me mildly that someone like this has power, although he's certainly far from the worst in Congress.
- rubikscube 13y ago
  Yes, I forgot that the UN has been a champion of the right to bear arms. Don't they subsidize the NRA? Seriously, I'll trust Rand Paul, the one who actually has experience in politics, including the UN, rather than the one throwing the conspiracy smears.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    The nuttiness isn't the UN's goal, but the vast overstatement of their power. The UN has no control over US internal affairs, and no matter how anti-gun they may be, talking about how the UN is going to come take our guns is just plain conspiracy craziness.
- dram 13y ago
  But the policy goal is to eventually have gun registrations and eliminate global gun ownership over time. The UN Arms Trade Treaty does create an international database of dealers, brokers and affiliated workers in finance, security, transport etc- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty#Criticism All this is gradual, incremental steps towards a defined ideological model- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration
- nhangen 13y ago
  Do you own a gun? Edit - Reply: Reason I ask is because you said 'our guns' and I wondered if you really meant 'your guns.'

by pvnick 13y ago

ebbv 13y ago

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are corporatists. They happen to be right on a couple of issues but they are wrong on almost everything else. A list of things they are wrong on: - Civil rights : The Pauls have long been against the Civil Rights act though they recently pretend they aren't. - Environmental regulation : They want none. Our major cities would look like those terrible pictures/video from China. Some of you may be too young to remember but the LA smog of the 80s was pretty bad. - Finance regulation : They want none, basically. The practices that caused the crash of 2008 haven't been stopped (and actually China is headed for a much, much bigger real estate crash which could make 2008 look mild.) We need regulation to provide a stable economy. See: Elizabeth Warren's many interviews on this subject. - Right to choose : They are against a woman's right to choose. - Equal pay : They are against equal pay for equal work laws. - Food inspection : They are against food inspection and want to rely on the free market to protect us from bad chicken and bean sprouts. - Health care : Again, they want a totally free market system where poor people are basically told "Good luck, sucker!" - Worker's rights : Never mind unions, the Pauls are against such simple things as safety regulations, laws requiring lunch breaks, time off, etc. for full time workers. All workers would be at the mercy of their employers. Which might sound great if you've only ever worked white collar jobs, but try go working delivering car parts or something. - Immigration : As part of their overall isolationist viewpoint, they are not going to treat the millions of illegal immigrants like human beings. It's not "contrarian bullshit", it's people who actually pay attention pointing out that being right twice a day doesn't make a good clock. EDIT: Because apparently I have to do all the work, I've added WHY they're wrong on all these issues. You may disagree with my viewpoints, but the point of this comment is to show I have well considered reasons for not liking them.

pvnick 13y ago
Your post contains zero information apart from "Here's a bunch of talking points. You go research them" Edit: Ebbv recently changed his post to elaborate on his points, so while his argument now basically boils down to "I'm a hardline liberal and this is where the Pauls and I differ," my post is no longer relevant.
- ebbv 13y ago
  I didn't think it was too much to ask that if you were defending him you'd know his stance on those issues. But I clarified for you since you asked.
- smutticus 13y ago
  All I learned from your two posts was that you are very angry. ebbv is listing actual positions of the Pauls on various issues. If you think he's wrong then call him out on them.
  - rubikscube 13y ago
    His points aren't even written coherently, but are slogans. e.g. "right to choose" and "They are against equal pay for equal work laws." He would have to demonstrate where Ron Paul and Rand Paul stated they are for inequality of pay for equal work. When you look at the issues, they aren't the same thing the juvenile slogans make them out to be.
    - dram 13y ago
      He's writing as if they are against all these ideas, as opposed to being against that particular policy or implementation for a solution. Also the issues are a lot more nuanced.
    - aaronbrethorst 13y ago
      Unfortunately, Paul wasn't in the Senate for their 2009 vote on Ledbetter. But, do you honestly think that someone who opposes anti-segregation laws because they 'tell business what to do' would have voted for an equal pay bill?

mikeash 13y ago

Rand Paul is a conspiracy nut who thinks the UN is going to take away our guns: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/rand-paul-obama-is-working-with-anti-american-globalists-plotting-against-our-constitution/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/r... "You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies...." It frightens me mildly that someone like this has power, although he's certainly far from the worst in Congress.

rubikscube 13y ago
Yes, I forgot that the UN has been a champion of the right to bear arms. Don't they subsidize the NRA? Seriously, I'll trust Rand Paul, the one who actually has experience in politics, including the UN, rather than the one throwing the conspiracy smears.
- mikeash 13y ago
  The nuttiness isn't the UN's goal, but the vast overstatement of their power. The UN has no control over US internal affairs, and no matter how anti-gun they may be, talking about how the UN is going to come take our guns is just plain conspiracy craziness.
dram 13y ago
But the policy goal is to eventually have gun registrations and eliminate global gun ownership over time. The UN Arms Trade Treaty does create an international database of dealers, brokers and affiliated workers in finance, security, transport etc- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty#Criticism All this is gradual, incremental steps towards a defined ideological model- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration
nhangen 13y ago
Do you own a gun? Edit - Reply: Reason I ask is because you said 'our guns' and I wondered if you really meant 'your guns.'