Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) made a fool out of himself during a nationally televised public hearing when he asked Hillary Clinton about a covert CIA operation that was actually non-existent:
“It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Watch:
Clinton clearly doesn’t know what the hell Paul is talking about, nor should she know, since Paul’s “news reports” are also non-existent. He actually got the information from the website of conspiracy theorist/right wing whackaloon, Alex Jones, who published the ‘story’ yesterday morning. Tell me again why anyone would vote for this idiot?
During a discussion with economist Paul Krugman on ABC’s “This Week”, Tea Party Wingnut, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) made the erroneous claim that government has grown under President Obama:
“[….] the size of growth of government is enormous under President Obama.”
In fact, the size of government has decreased under President Obama, as you can see by this chart comparing government employment under George W. Bush and President Obama.
Adding…….as you probably know, the spike in 2010 was due to the census.
Sen. Stupid err….Rand Paul (R-Ky), doesn’t think that the opinion of the Supreme Court makes something constitutional….or not:
“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.”
Interesting. Then perhaps we should revisit Bush v. Gore. Or Citizens United. Oh that it were so….
As Ashby notes, the Supreme Court is indeed the ultimate authority on the constitutionality or lack thereof, of a thing:
Actually, that’s exactly what it means. For all intents and purposes, when the Supreme Court declares something constitutional, it will remain as such until the Supreme Court declares otherwise or the constitution is amended.
In a discussion on the disgraceful travesty of hunger amongst senior citizens, American senior citizens, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Senator Al Franken (D-MN) stood up. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) did not.
Now, you may think “so what? This was entirely predictable.” But despite that, this video perfectly illustrates a major philosophical difference between Republicans and most other people. And that difference is that Republicans, as was illustrated so well in this discussion, simply do not care.
Republicans are for and by the wealthy, and have no qualms about throwing our most vulnerable citizens under the proverbial bus.Rand Paul might just as well have said "let them eat cake", because that is precisely what he meant.
Watch:
TRANSCRIPT (transcribed by myself)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Making sure that seniors have the nutrition that they need is not only the right and moral thing to do, it is the financially smart thing to do.
It is estimated today that 5 million seniors face the threat of hunger, 3 million seniors are at risk of hunger, and 1 million seniors go hungry because they can not afford to buy food.
But in some cases it's not just money. In some cases it's the transportation to get to the store. In some cases it's the ability to think through when you're 85 or 90 and alone what kind of food you need and how you purchase it. Persistent hunger and malnutrition leads to multiple chronic diseases, resulting in extended hospital stays and premature nursing home placements. There's some studies out there that are quite sure about significant percentage of seniors today who are in nursing homes who need not be in that expensive care if they had good nutrition and somebody visiting them on a regular basis. That seems to me to be pretty dumb.
SEN. AL FRANKEN (D-MN):Make no mistake, Rand (Sen. Rand Paul), The Older Americans Act saves money. It allows seniors to stay in their homes who wouldn't otherwise be able to stay in their homes.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY):It's curious that, uh, only in Washington can you spend 2 biliion dollars and claim that you're saving money. Here's a thought. Perhaps the 2 billian dollars we spend on OAA if we subsumed that in to another program and didn't spend it, that might be saving money.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Senator Paul has suggested that only in Washington can people actually believe that spending money actually saves money. I think that is the kind of philosophy which results in us spending almost twice as much on healthcare as any other country on earth. Because we have millions and millions of Americans who can't get to a doctor on time, some of them die, some of them become very, very ill. They end up in the emergency room, they end up in a hospital at great cost rather than making sure they have access to a doctor. Maybe it's the same reason why we have more people in jail than any other country on earth including China, tied to the fact that we have the highest poverty rate among children than any other major country on earth. So the point is, and I think we have a bit of a difference here, I believe, and I think Senator Franken has spoken to the fact that prevention, keeping people healthy, taking care of their needs at home, does actually save money. And that if you deny those resources, you leave a senior citizen at home today alone, isolated, confused about medicine, not getting the nutrition they need, you know what happens to that person? That person collapses. That person ends up in an emergency room. That person ends up in a nursing home at much greater cost to the system.
SEN. AL FRANKEN: Here's my very precise question. Does the Older Americans Act save taxpayers money by allowing seniors to stay in their homes as opposed to going to nursing homes?
MS. GREENLEE, Assistant Secretary, Administration on Aging: Yes Senator.
SEN. AL FRANKEN: Thank you.
SEN. RAND PAUL: Um, I appreciate the great and very, um, I think collegial discussion, And we do have different opinions, you know, some of us believe more in the ability of government to cure problems, and some of us believe more in the ability of private charity to cure these problems. I guess what I still find curious is though that if we are saving money with the 2 billion dollars we spend, perhaps we should give you 20 billion. Is there a limit? Where would we get to? How much money should we give you in order to save money so if we spend federal money to save money, where is the limit? I think we could reach a point of absurdity. Thank you.
SEN. AL FRANKEN:I think you just did (reach a point of absurdity).
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Uh, I would suggest, Senator Paul, when you have seniors in this country who are dealing with food insecurity, who are not getting the nutrition that they need, my guess is that the government is wasting substantial sums of money by not taking care of those seniors, who will end up in emergency rooms, in hospitals, uh, and in nursing homes, so, you asked that question, my answer is I don't want to see one senior in this country go hungry. It's the morally right thing to do, and from a fiscally conservative point of view, saving government money, in my view it is the right thing to do.
In a vote held today, 40 out of 47 Republican senators voted to support the Paul Ryan Plan, which would end Medicare as we know it. Brian Beutler, emphasis mine:
The GOP continued its bloody walk into the Medicare buzzsaw Wednesday, when 40 out of 47 Senate Republicans voted in support of the House GOP budget, and its plan to phase out and privatize the popular entitlement program.
The test vote failed by a vote of 57-40. But the roll call illustrates that Medicare privatization -- along with deep cuts to Medicaid and other social services -- remains the consensus position of the GOP despite the growing political backlash against them.
Voting with all of the Democrats against debating the plan were Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) -- both 2012 incumbents -- along with Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK). Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against it because it wasn't radical enough.
Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) did not vote.
Democrats intentionally scheduled the vote less than 24 hours after a Democrat won a special election in New York's 26th -- and heavily Republican -- congressional district, on the strength of defending Medicare from a GOP onslaught. The outcome of that election heightened the political stakes, but sent few Republicans bolting for the exits.
"I've been surprised a lot of the times about how they're voting here," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at a press conference after the vote.
“Rand Paul voted against it because it wasn’t radical enough.” Unbelievable.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) blathering as to how if you support universal health care, you wish to enslave health care workers, you believe in slavery. Seriously.
With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.
Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.
I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be.
Last night, at the Congressional Correspondents Dinner, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) made fun of Newt Gingrich for his flip flops on Libya, along with his many wives, and then he got in a dig at Fox News. Amazing or just punked by a writer?
I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives. [...]
There’s a big debate over there. Fox News can’t decide, what do they love more, bombing the Middle East or bashing the president? It’s like I was over there and there was an anchor going, they were pleading, can’t we do both? Can’t we bomb the Middle East and bash the president at the same time? How are we going to make this work?
Watch it:
One has to wonder if he wrote his own material, or got punked by a Lib speechwriter.
Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared on Fox Business Network to continue this war on labor rights, using his time on the station to attack unions and claim their pay and benefits are too high. At one point during the interview, the senator began attacking “government unions,” saying they are “going to have to” contribute to their pensions and health care plans, just like Paul has to as a senator, and that Kentuckians back home don’t have any sympathy for government union workers because they pay for their retirements:
PAUL: Federal employees have almost double the compensation that private employees have. [...] Maybe these government unions are going to have to contribute to their pension, maybe they’re going to have to pay something for their health care, like I’m having to pay, so when I hear regular taxpayers in Kentucky they don’t have a lot of sympathy because they’re paying high insurance premiums and they have to pay for their own retirements.
Less than a week after his election, Kentucky's Senator-elect Rand Paul already appears to be making a rapid departure away from one of his campaign promises: an earmark ban that stood as an conservative cornerstone, a position Paul touted to indicate he was serious about tackling the reckless spending practices of Washington.
Here's what Paul told the Wall Street Journal over the weekend:
In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.
Such statements would have seemed impossible back in March. Here's Paul's clear-cut pledge to tackle the "corrupting" carve-outs of federal money:
Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign. He has supported Sen. Jim DeMint's vocal support for an earmark ban and he supports news that House Democrats are even coming around on the idea of a partial ban.
I think it’s safe to say that we’re going to be seeing a lot of flip-flopping from the Tea Party Republicans as reality hits home over the next two years.
Newly ordained Kentucky TeaPublican Senator, Rand Paul on Medicare during a 1998 appearance on the public affairs program, Kentucky Tonight. Paul criticized the government for not allowing the market to decide the amount of reimbursement doctors should receive from Medicare. He also said that the market should decide health care prices.
The fundamental reason why Medicare is failing is why the Soviet Union failed -- socialism doesn't work. You have ... no price fluctuation.
Of course, the opthomologist had/has no dog in this fight.
And helllooo, if the government allowed the market to decide on the amount of reimbursement to doctors, wouldn't that mean more government spending? Why, yes, I believe it would.
Last night in Kentucky, Rand Paul talked to Wolf Blitzer [video below]about the Bush tax cuts and why he wants to shield the ultra-wealthy and the mega corporations. Think Progress:
Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Paul announced his intention to do anything it takes to shield the privileged rich and corporate America. Asked if he would end the $830 billion, unpaid-for Bush tax cuts to the rich and return tax rates for the wealthiest bracket to Clinton-era levels, Paul snapped and said such a move would cause a “second great depression” and declared that “anybody who proposes such a policy really is, I think, unfit to be making decisions.”
Paul then clarified his delusional worldview by telling Blitzer that “there are no rich” and “there are no poor.” In Paul’s mind, even taxing yachts would somehow punish the working poor in Kentucky. “We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people,” concluded Rand:
PAUL:I would say that they must be in favor of a second American depression, because if you raise taxes to that consequence, that’s what will happen in this country. Raising taxes in the midst of a recession would be a disaster for our economy. And anybody who proposes such a policy really is, I think, unfit to be making decisions.
BLITZER: What if they just raised taxes on the richest, those making more than 250,000 dollars a year?
PAUL:Well, the thing is, we’re all interconnected. There are no rich. There are no middle class. There are no poor. We all are interconnected in the economy. You remember a few years ago, when they tried to tax the yachts, that didn’t work. You know who lost their jobs? The people making the boats, the guys making 50,000 and 60,000 dollars a year lost their jobs. We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people. So just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone. Let’s not punish anyone. Let’s keep taxes low and let’s cut spending.
Tim Profitt, you are not only a despicable thug who thinks it makes him more manly to beat on women, but you are a criminal who belongs behind bars.
You are also a moron of the first order if you think that Ms. Valle in any way owes you an apology. On the contrary, your boss, Rand Paul, should step down as the Republican nominee for the Senate because the culture comes from the top down. Losers, all of you. From TPM:
Tim Profitt -- the former Rand Paul volunteer who stomped on the head of a MoveOn activist -- told told local CBS station WKYT that he wants an apology from the woman he stomped and that she started the whole thing.
"I don't think it's that big of a deal," Profitt said. "I would like for her to apologize to me to be honest with you."
Rand Paul fired Profitt after this incident hit the news, and made a half-assed apology. Profitt was a campaign coordinator prior to the firing.
UPDATE 2: Rand Paul's Democratic opponent, Jack Conway, has called on Paul to return all contributions received from Tim Profitt, the Kentucky Stomper.
UPDATE 1 -The man who stomped on Lauren Valle's head and neck is Tim Profitt, a campaign coordinator from the Paul campaign. Mike Pezzano, mentioned in my original post, is the man who held Valle down. From Talking Points Memo:
The Rand Paul campaign has just severed ties with their Bourbon County coordinator -- a man by the name of Tim Profitt -- who has identified himself as the supporter who stomped on the head and neck of a MoveOn activist outside of the Senate debate in Lexington, KY last night, according to Fox News.
UPDATE 2 -Valle has a concussion and a sprained arm. From The Washington Post:
She has told MoveOn officials that she suffered a concussion and sprained shoulder and arm, a MoveOn spokesperson confirms.
The woman, Lauren Valle of MoveOn, had approached Paul and tried to give him an "employee of the month" award from a fake company called Republicorp, when Paul supporters dragged her to the ground and stepped on her head and shoulder.
UPDATE 3 - The Tea Party Republicans who felt the need to tackle and stomp on a woman are pathetically unmanly, and should be sitting in a jail cell.
Our remedy, as a group, is to VOTE. Drag everyone you know to the polls with you, and vote Democratic. Not voting is just another way of casting your ballot, but for a Republican.
On Tuesday, Lauren Valle spoke for the first time since being thrust into the center of an alarming campaign fracas. Valle said that she recognized the Paul supporters who went after her and felt frightened almost immediately after they claimed they were there to do "crowd control." Her treatment, she said, was "premeditated."
“I have been at a bunch of events before, the previous debate, and the Rand Paul campaign knows me and they have expressed their distastes for my work before. What happened last night was that about five minutes before Rand Paul's car arrived they identified me and my partner, Alex, who was with me. They surrounded me. There was five of them. They motioned to each other and got behind me. My partner Alex heard them say 'We are here to do crowd control we might have to take someone out.'”
“When Rand Paul's car arrived a couple of them stepped in front of me so I stepped off the curb to get around them to get back out front. At that point they started grabbing for me and I ran all the way around the car with them in pursuit. The footage is after I've run all the way around the car and I'm in front of the car and that is when they took me down. One or two people twisted my arms behind my back and took me down... It was about two-to-three second after that that another person stomped on my head. And I lay there for 20 seconds or so and my partner Alex came and got me up and that's the point where there is the media clip of me speaking.”
A spokesman for the Lexington Police Department said on Tuesday afternoon that "Mr. Profitt is currently being served with a criminal summons ordering him to appear before a Fayette County District Court Judge."
Look for Breitbart and the boyz to say she "provoked" the crowd by being there and got what she deserved.
Adding.....these creeps also indulged themselves in a little bre@st [the use of the @ is to fool google, which shuts you out of safe search if the word is used] fondling when they were pushing her to the ground. Scum.
Rand Paul would not only like to abolish the Department of Education, but he does not want your kids thinking that "two mommies" in a family is acceptable or normal. Quote from the Kentucky Senate debate on Thursday, Oct. 15, 2010.
I would rather the local schools decide things. I don’t like the idea of somebody in Washington deciding that Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergardener at school. That’s what happens when we let things get to a federal level. I think I would rather have local school boards, teachers, parents, people in Paduka deciding about your schools and not have it in Washington.
Medicare is socialized medicine! People are afraid of that because they’ll say “ohhh, you’re against Medicare.” No, I’ll say “We have to do something different. We can’t just eliminate Medicare, but we have to get more to a market-based system.”
It’s counter-intuitive to a lot of people, but you have to pay for things if you want prices to come down. So you really need higher deductibles. And the real answer to Medicare would be a $2,000 deductible, but try selling that one in an election.
[T]he issue here is not whether Dr. Paul would be able to answer a
“Jeopardy” question about Harlan's past. It's about whether an aspiring
United States senator from Kentucky understands that coal is not, and
never has been, just another industry in this state. When Dr. Paul
speaks flippantly about how “accidents happen” — as he has in discussing
mining fatalities — he betrays a lack of awareness of the tragic price
in blood that has been paid for rapacious mining practices and
inadequate regulation. And that's before one ponders the environmental
predations associated with mining.
With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.
Recent Comments