Rand Paul attacks Hillary over Lewinsky

[Jason78]

she and president Clinton were given a free pass over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

A free pass?   Seriously?  What fucking planet is he from?

[josephpalazzo]

Of course, Hillary is responsible for Bill's philandering... oh wait, is this 1814? If only we had time machines, we could send Rand Paul to where he belongs in the 19th century.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Now now..According to the reverend Pat Robertson it's CLEARLY Hillary's fault for not being a better ho fo Bill.  [-X

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Ha, I posted that just for you Jay. Rand Paul runs on the republican ticket but has always claimed to be a libertarian(as if there were a difference).

No, he doesn't.  He calls himself a conservative, and it is not the fault of the rest of the world that you think the two terms are the same.  It is as if you are in a marching band and saying that everyone else is out of step with you.  He keeps libertarians at the same arms-length that they keep him.

Seriously, he's not his dad.  I know "Ron" and "Rand" both start with an "R" but they are not the same person.

It must be tough that everyone in the world except you is wrong on this.

If someone supports the president you go on and on about them being a cheerleader. If someone is a Liberal and espouses liberal ideals, you go on about how libertarians are modern liberals and the old hijacking bullshit.

Funny, I said that libertarians are not modern liberals and that modern liberals are not classic liberals. I guess that sentence is just a little too confusing.

I understand. Conservatives have tried very hard to destroy this nation in the last 30 odd years, in various names, NEO-CON, CONSERVATIVE, LIBERTARIAN, EVANGELICAL, REPUBLICAN, MORAL MAJORITY, and now TEA PARTY.

Wow.  So now your talking points even go so far as to say libertarians and neocons are the same.  When, in fact, it is the neocons that are the faction in the Republicans that hate libertarians even more than progressives do.  Quick history lesson - do you know where the "neo" in "neocon" came from?  They got that name because they changed from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party due to a perception that the Democrats weren't firm enough against the USSR.  They didn't change their ideology when they changed their party.  They were known for a LONG time as "good Republicans" or "Republicans that you wouldn't mind being seen at a cocktail party with".  It wasn't until Bush became president that Democrats "discovered" that they don't like neocons.  Libertarians always knew we didn't like neocons.  History lesson part two - not all of that ideology left the Democratic Party, some stayed behind.  They're called progressives.

The problem is that they have bad ideas or just no ideas at all. It's always the same old shit, either the tried and failed Reagan "trickle-down" theory, or the Nixon crap.

Libertarians do not embrace supply side (the actual name of "trickle down") nor do libertarians embrace Nixonian wage and price controls.  It was also Nixon who took the US fully and completely off the gold standard, a move libertarians oppose.  In fact, Nixon was such a believer in the government managing the economy that the Libertarian Party was founded in opposition to Nixon's command economy of central economic controls.  Bet you didn't know that.

And the other great tactic that they all have in common is obstruction. Not only do they lie and mislead but they just obstruct and try and bring down the government caring less about the consequences.

Yeah, the one libertarian that the congress had up until recently was always obstructing everything, all by himself in the chamber that doesn't have a filibuster.

They vote and act just like everyone else on the right side of the aisle, no different at all.

The one libertarian in congress got in a bit of trouble because he often didn't vote with the Republicans.

Rand Paul has sought the support of the tea baggers for years now. His closest allies are Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, and Michelle Bachman. If you Google Rand Paul you get those people as well with a statement "other like minded people".

Yeah, he gets support from the tea party supporters.  But you haven't established that he gets support from libertarians, because you can't establish that.  So you read the talking points memo that says "if you can't find libertarians who support him then find a conservative and call him a libertarian".  Blue Rools Red Drools!

[AllPurposeAtheist]

How's that libertarian angenda sweeping through Jason? Hmmm.. :-k
Oh, I know.. Libertarians iz unique.  :-|   Sorry pal, but when your party gets caught up in bed with rubes you get dick prints on your ass.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

How's that libertarian angenda sweeping through Jason? Hmmm.. :-k
Oh, I know.. Libertarians iz unique.  :-|   Sorry pal, but when your party gets caught up in bed with rubes you get dick prints on your ass.

So are you going to list all the elected libertarians that are causing our agenda to sweep?  Here's the list.  Is that enough to cause an agenda to sweep?

Nope, we don't have conservoprogressive "dick prints in [our] ass".

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Face it jason. You're an oppressed minority and probably be rounded up and feed to lions by us conservoprogressives any time now. :-$

[mykcob4]

Ha, I posted that just for you Jay. Rand Paul runs on the republican ticket but has always claimed to be a libertarian(as if there were a difference).

No, he doesn't.  He calls himself a conservative, and it is not the fault of the rest of the world that you think the two terms are the same.  It is as if you are in a marching band and saying that everyone else is out of step with you.  He keeps libertarians at the same arms-length that they keep him.

Seriously, he's not his dad.  I know "Ron" and "Rand" both start with an "R" but they are not the same person.

It must be tough that everyone in the world except you is wrong on this.

If someone supports the president you go on and on about them being a cheerleader. If someone is a Liberal and espouses liberal ideals, you go on about how libertarians are modern liberals and the old hijacking bullshit.

Funny, I said that libertarians are not modern liberals and that modern liberals are not classic liberals. I guess that sentence is just a little too confusing.

I understand. Conservatives have tried very hard to destroy this nation in the last 30 odd years, in various names, NEO-CON, CONSERVATIVE, LIBERTARIAN, EVANGELICAL, REPUBLICAN, MORAL MAJORITY, and now TEA PARTY.

Wow.  So now your talking points even go so far as to say libertarians and neocons are the same.  When, in fact, it is the neocons that are the faction in the Republicans that hate libertarians even more than progressives do.  Quick history lesson - do you know where the "neo" in "neocon" came from?  They got that name because they changed from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party due to a perception that the Democrats weren't firm enough against the USSR.  They didn't change their ideology when they changed their party.  They were known for a LONG time as "good Republicans" or "Republicans that you wouldn't mind being seen at a cocktail party with".  It wasn't until Bush became president that Democrats "discovered" that they don't like neocons.  Libertarians always knew we didn't like neocons.  History lesson part two - not all of that ideology left the Democratic Party, some stayed behind.  They're called progressives.

The problem is that they have bad ideas or just no ideas at all. It's always the same old shit, either the tried and failed Reagan "trickle-down" theory, or the Nixon crap.

Libertarians do not embrace supply side (the actual name of "trickle down") nor do libertarians embrace Nixonian wage and price controls.  It was also Nixon who took the US fully and completely off the gold standard, a move libertarians oppose.  In fact, Nixon was such a believer in the government managing the economy that the Libertarian Party was founded in opposition to Nixon's command economy of central economic controls.  Bet you didn't know that.

And the other great tactic that they all have in common is obstruction. Not only do they lie and mislead but they just obstruct and try and bring down the government caring less about the consequences.

Yeah, the one libertarian that the congress had up until recently was always obstructing everything, all by himself in the chamber that doesn't have a filibuster.

They vote and act just like everyone else on the right side of the aisle, no different at all.

The one libertarian in congress got in a bit of trouble because he often didn't vote with the Republicans.

Rand Paul has sought the support of the tea baggers for years now. His closest allies are Rick Perry, Ted Cruz, and Michelle Bachman. If you Google Rand Paul you get those people as well with a statement "other like minded people".

Yeah, he gets support from the tea party supporters.  But you haven't established that he gets support from libertarians, because you can't establish that.  So you read the talking points memo that says "if you can't find libertarians who support him then find a conservative and call him a libertarian".  Blue Rools Red Drools!

Oh for crying out loud Jason what a bunch of horseshit. Rand Paul ran as a republican. He claims to be a libertarian. I never said he was his dad....EVER! You just put words and people's mouth and then argue as if that is what they said.
BTW the sentence isn't too confusing for me, but it is just wrong. The thing is that you don't know nor do you want to admit what "LIBERAL" is. Ironically you don't even know what a libertarian is.
And you have "neo-con" wrong as well. Neo-con describes the Chaney's in the republican party that wanted to commit preemptive strikes to secure foreign assets.
The Urban Dictionary describes Chaney and the hardliners as "neo-cons" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... id=6376428
It has nothing to do with democrats and never has.
There are other ways for obstruction than filibuster as the conservatives in the house have proven.
Ron and Rand both start with "R" but it is the "R" after their names that is significant. They run as republicans and claim to be libertarians, which makes no difference at all, none whatsoever.
1) Supply side economics or trickle down it's still the same thing and 2) basing the economy on a gold standard is outdated and unrealistic. I understand that the economy should be based on real values, but the conservatives have fucked that up since 1972. Now all economies are based on speculation. It is going to be very hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Don't think it can be done. Carter tried to do it and he got crucified for it.
You can can it with the cheerleader rah rah shit Jason, and the condescending "It must be tough that everyone in the world except you is wrong on this." If I said that shit to you I'd get banned.
In reality libertarians act and vote like the rest of the Brownshirts. They may spell out a platform but they don't follow it at all. They caucus and obey the republican party meaning the Koch Brothers & FOX.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You just put words and people's mouth and then argue as if that is what they said.

Lie how you claim that I claim that libertarians are modern liberals?

BTW the sentence isn't too confusing for me, but it is just wrong. The thing is that you don't know nor do you want to admit what "LIBERAL" is. Ironically you don't even know what a libertarian is.

So libertarians don't know that libertarianism is, but you do.  One again, you are the only person in the entire marching band who is in step.

And you have "neo-con" wrong as well. Neo-con describes the Chaney's in the republican party that wanted to commit preemptive strikes to secure foreign assets.

Yeah, that doesn't mean anything with regards to their history.  History is important.

It has nothing to do with democrats and never has.

Except that's where they came from.

1) Supply side economics or trickle down it's still the same thing

Yes, those two are the same thing.  Not a libertarian position, but they are the same as each other.

2) basing the economy on a gold standard is outdated and unrealistic.

That is the conservative and liberal position, but not the libertarian position.

I wonder, when you and your enlightened progressives finally take over, what will be the punishment for us libertarians who say that we're not conservatives?  There are four lights!  But then again, you are the only person in the world who knows what libertarians actually believe, and libertarians are wrong about what they believe.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

basing the economy on a gold standard is outdated and unrealistic.

I don't believe I over looked this point.  It's a good one.

Libertarians believe in a gold standard.
Conservatives think a gold standard is outdated and unrealistic.
mykcob4 thinks a gold standard is outdated and unrealistic.

mykcob4 agrees with conservatives that libertarians are wrong.

Ergo mykcob4 is a conservative?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Hmm.. Holy shitballs. I believe the sun rises in the east and so do conservatives.  I must be a conservative.  Son of a bitch.  :-k

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Hmm.. Holy shitballs. I believe the sun rises in the east and so do conservatives.  I must be a conservative.  Son of a bitch.  :-k

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Hmm.. Holy shitballs. I believe the sun rises in the east and so do conservatives.  I must be a conservative.  Son of a bitch.  :-k

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Meanwhile libertarians think "the Sun rising in the east" is not the most accurate way to say that the portion of the Earth on which you are located is moving to face the Sun due to the rotation of the Earth and not the movement of the Sun.

What I'm pointing out is a shared political belief.  Your red herring is very silly.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Meanwhile libertarians think "the Sun rising in the east" is not the most accurate way to say that the portion of the Earth on which you are located is moving to face the Sun due to the rotation of the Earth and not the movement of the Sun.

What I'm pointing out is a shared political belief.  Your red herring is very silly.

You are a red herring Jason and not very interesting. Go ahead..vote libtard and get them all elected and guess what you're looking at...an even more screwed up republican party. Imagine that, huh?  :roll: