Rand Paul to America's Hungry Seniors: Let Them Eat Private Charity

I wonder if his parents' eat private charity meals?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/161587/rand-paul-americas-hungry-seniors-let-them-eat-private-charity

The Pauls (yes, both of them) equate personal freedom with "economicfreedom", so in order for them to have the personal free they crave, they cannot be bothered with mundane tasks like worrying over hungry elderly folks. Economically free for his corporate buddies to develop monopolies and to pollute our environment at their will.

Its actually amusing the way the Paul call themselves "Libertarians" and many people eat it up. I guess it sounds important to them or something.

Both Rand and Ron Paul want to deregulate business but at the same time they have very conservative, social, interventionist ideas on what we people should and should not be allowed to do. I'm wondering when all the newly minted "Libertarians" are going to realize that the Pauls are traditional Republicans.

Republicans now calling themselves " Libertarians " ? Now I have heard everything. Just like you can call a Manure pile a Mushroom patch. But at its base, it's still a Manure pile !!! Republicans don't know the real meaning of being a " Libertarian ". To be a Libertarian, one must hold a Philosophy of upholding individual liberty, especially freedom of expression, and of action. Along with strong Civil Liberties, non-intervention in foreign affairs, and self-determination. For Rand Paul to tell Seniors to "eat" Public Charity is akin to the French Aristocrats telling the Peasantry to " eat cake " ! " Off with their Heads " !!!

hey thats what Pelosi said




http://freddsez.blogspot.com/2010/01/pelosi-to-americans-let-them-eat-cake.html

Makes you want to Vote 3rd Party next Election !!! Republican or Democrat ?? None of the Above !!!

Time is running out and who knows what will happen before the elections 2012. Many Americans are getting tired of their arrogance.

by requete' Yesterday at 20:58
""Republicans now calling themselves " Libertarians " ?""

You can put lipstick or a suit on a pig....but its still a pig...

UPCHITCREEK wrote:hey thats what Pelosi said

http://freddsez.blogspot.com/2010/01/pelosi-to-americans-let-them-eat-cake.html

Actually, Pelosi didn't say that. The right wing conservative guy who wrote freddsez blog said it. Marie Antoinette didn't even say it.

Did you notice you're in the news section? Look at the front page - it says only reliable news sources.

In other words, Fredd is a liar.

truth wrote:In other words, Fredd is a liar.

Good to see you around, truth. I wondered where you were.

Hi Tara, you "hard leftist", you.

In the mater of Rep. Pelosi, I think that her response was spot on. The questioner was demanding SPECIFIC Constitutional language justifying the Health Care Law. That's not a serious question. Anyone asking such a question in a Constitutional law class would be laughed out of the room. Asking such a quesion of the SCOTUS would be even more embarrassingly hilarious. Even Justice Thomas would probably chuckle. The question shows utter ignorance of over 200 years of Constitutional law.

There are innumerable governmental activities, including all kinds of regulations, mandates, and duties that have no SPECIFIC constitutional authority. Instead, they fall under the rubrics of such GENERAL Constitutional provisions as the interstate commerce clause, the general welfare clause, etc.

If the Health Care Law is held unconstitutional, in whole or in part, it absolutely will NOT be because there is no SPECIFIC authorization in the Constituition.

The reporter asked a butt stupid question. Calling it non-serious was being kind.

The "reporter" was from CNS - 'nuff said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercast_News_Service

Yea, I thought the article was a little Repub slanted myself !!! CNS's motto - " The " Right " news, " Right " now !

I consider myself a Libertarian on most issues, and do not feel one can be conservative Republican and Libertarian. Most conservative Republicans want to ban abortion and gay marriage, and I do not. I don't care if one has abortions, gay marriage, does drugs (I support legalization)or anything else as long as I don't have to pay. I am against censorship and feel we all have the right to say what we want, but both parties are trying to take this away. I don't like guns, but feel law abiding citizens have every right to have them. What you do in your home is your business. I don't smoke, but think it's wrong to make it illegal or heavily tax smokers.

Fiscally, I support cutting many programs across the spectrum, from any program helping illegals, to eliminating corporate welfare. The one thing I do not support is free trade because it leads to more outsourcing. I support cutting government waste.

I support many things Ron Paul stands for, but not the more conservative social issues. I agree with him that the war in Iraq was wrong.

nwp,

How would you deal with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Unemployment Insurance?

I think everyone supports cutting government waste. In fact, I hate any kind of waste: government, private, or even personal. Waste is a waste.

truth wrote:nwp,

How would you deal with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Unemployment Insurance?

I think everyone supports cutting government waste. In fact, I hate any kind of waste: government, private, or even personal. Waste is a waste.

If it was up to me I would place restrictions on Medicaid and Food Stamps. For instance I would make them citizen or qualified immigrant (meaning immigrant who worked here)only. None of this illegals coming here to pop out babies and get assistance. In the case of welfare I would make it like unemployment, meaning they have to prove they are looking for a job. Also, I would get rid of the loophole that allows people on welfare to go to school instead of looking for work because many keep going to school to avoid working. Instead I would require them to work part time while attending college. If they couldn't find a job, then I'd allow volunteer work in lieu of working a paid job. I'd also make it a limit, and this would depend on the economy (meaning better times, less months on welfare). The exceptions would be disabled and elderly who shouldn't be expected to work. Years ago I worked for the system and saw the abuse, which is why I often bring it up. This is a big problem in Illinois.

In the case of Medicare and Social Security, I'd make sure only certain people qualified. By this, I mean wealthy people shouln't be getting anything. How wealthy would be up to debate of course and that I don't have a limit since it would vary by area. Like Medicaid and Food Stamps, I'd want in place a guarantee that only people who are here legally are collecting and that they paid into the system. Otherwise I'd keep it the same.

Unemployment I would change the rule that in many cases going to school makes one ineligble for unemployment. I would open job training for anyone on unemployment and welfare regardless of why they are getting assistance and regardless of college degrees.

truth wrote:The "reporter" was from CNS - 'nuff said.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercast_News_Service

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercast_News_Service[/quote[/url]]

Thats what I find the most annoying. The way the right will jump on an innocuous fact or response and be all over it applying negative connotations of their own to make it sound worse. They act as if its ok to spread half-truths and outright lies.

That's what the Right does ! Spreads lies and deception. If you tell a lie long enough, and to the most people, they will believe it as the truth ! That's their philosophy ! Jee, I think Hitler and Stalin used those same tactics ! Annoying - Yes. Surprising - No. History repeats itself !