Toshi too it would seem lately. 
Somewhere in california, Joker is unzipping his pants.
- Thread starter Pesqueeb
- Start date
can I have a condensed version?
Rep. Ron Paul, one of the best-known U.S. House members, also one of the nation's most famous libertarians, let it be known Tuesday he won't run for re-election to focus on what is largely considered by many to be a quixotic run for the White House.
Paul, a 75-year old Republican who has served as representative from Texas' 14th Congressional District since 1996, revealed his intentions to a Texas local newspaper, The Facts, of Brazoria County. An excerpt:
"I felt it was better that I concentrate on one election," Paul said. "It's about that time when I should change tactics."
His announcement will give enough time for anyone with aspirations for his seat to think about running, he said. Paul didn't want to wait for filing in the 2012 primary to let people know he wasn't seeking reelection.
"I didn't want to hold off until in December," he said. "I thought it shouldn't be any later than now."
It's unlikely that by leaving Congress Paul will lose any of his appeal to his devoted followers.
His influence on the national scene has been less about his effectiveness as a legislator and more about his nearly unswerving advocacy of individual rights over government power as well as his opposition to the Federal Reserve and insistence that the U.S. return its currency to the gold standard.
He was also almost unique among Republicans during the George W. Bush administration as an unstinting critic of U.S. foreign policy, especially the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many of those are ideas Paul will be able to continue to push as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and beyond, without the hindrance of having to tend to a congressman's responsibilities to vote and provide constituent services.
Paul can also depart Congress reassured in the knowledge that his son, Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and ideological as well as actual kin, is in place.
An obstetrician by training (his son is an ophthalmologist) Paul actually first won a House seat in a special election in 1976. But he lost it a few months later in the general election only to regain it in the next election.
He decided to run for U.S. Senate in 1978 but lost to conservative Phil Gramm. Paul's House seat was won by Tom DeLay who went on to become House majority leader but later was convicted on state campaign finance charges and sentenced to prison.
Paul won with 76 percent of the vote in 2010 so the district certainly has to be considered safe for Republicans.
guess I should have specified a bit more lmao......perhaps a one line summary?
Code:
Rep. Ron Paul, one of the best-known U.S. House members, also one of the nation's most famous libertarians, let it be known Tuesday he won't run for re-election to focus on what is largely considered by many to be a quixotic run for the White House.Paul, a 75-year old Republican who has served as representative from Texas' 14th Congressional District since 1996, revealed his intentions to a Texas local newspaper, The Facts, of Brazoria County. An excerpt: "I felt it was better that I concentrate on one election," Paul said. "It's about that time when I should change tactics." His announcement will give enough time for anyone with aspirations for his seat to think about running, he said. Paul didn't want to wait for filing in the 2012 primary to let people know he wasn't seeking reelection. "I didn't want to hold off until in December," he said. "I thought it shouldn't be any later than now." It's unlikely that by leaving Congress Paul will lose any of his appeal to his devoted followers. His influence on the national scene has been less about his effectiveness as a legislator and more about his nearly unswerving advocacy of individual rights over government power as well as his opposition to the Federal Reserve and insistence that the U.S. return its currency to the gold standard. He was also almost unique among Republicans during the George W. Bush administration as an unstinting critic of U.S. foreign policy, especially the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of those are ideas Paul will be able to continue to push as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and beyond, without the hindrance of having to tend to a congressman's responsibilities to vote and provide constituent services. Paul can also depart Congress reassured in the knowledge that his son, Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican and ideological as well as actual kin, is in place. An obstetrician by training (his son is an ophthalmologist) Paul actually first won a House seat in a special election in 1976. But he lost it a few months later in the general election only to regain it in the next election. He decided to run for U.S. Senate in 1978 but lost to conservative Phil Gramm. Paul's House seat was won by Tom DeLay who went on to become House majority leader but later was convicted on state campaign finance charges and sentenced to prison. Paul won with 76 percent of the vote in 2010 so the district certainly has to be considered safe for Republicans.FML :facepalm: why do I even enter this thread 
You must spread some reputation around before you can give it to $tinkle again.
ditto, hit stinkle for the first smart ass post
lulzstupid character limit
I see what you did there
Too damn lazy to find the right color to make it invisible, and I can't give rep to anyone in the thread
I also tried to +rep $tinkle.
I realize Paul is inconsistent (anti-abortion as a ob/gyn doc and a libertarian? wtf?), has many racist things in his past writings, and is in general just a bit of a crank
... but I still would prefer him to anyone else currently in the race*.
* who polls at a non-negligible number.
I realize Paul is inconsistent (anti-abortion as a ob/gyn doc and a libertarian? wtf?), has many racist things in his past writings, and is in general just a bit of a crank
... but I still would prefer him to anyone else currently in the race*.* who polls at a non-negligible number.
One liner for GFF:
Libtard hypocrite not running for reelection. Many lulz were had.
Good enough?
Libtard hypocrite not running for reelection. Many lulz were had.
Good enough?
everything but libtard.........I honestly have never paid ANY attention to politics
republican, democrat, libtard....I have no idea what they are
I spent my life working hard in the woods and partied even harder on my time off....I am starting to realize I need to learn a little bit but it gets me pissed off the more I learn.
Libertarian - someone who believes that the government should, within reason, stay out of peoples lives.
Libtard - someone who believes in smaller/no government even to the detriment of society. See: Rand Paul.
Tea Party - someone who believes that all government programs should cease, except for the ones that they personally benefit from. Those are great.
Libtard - someone who believes in smaller/no government even to the detriment of society. See: Rand Paul.
Tea Party - someone who believes that all government programs should cease, except for the ones that they personally benefit from. Those are great.
among dozens of things on "the list", i think we all stand to benefit from well regulated and efficiently run schools, public transportation, medicare/medicaid, nat'l defense, but far from most of us personally benefit from more than any one of those.
what does that make me?
Misinformed?
May I direct you (again) to this:
Edit: I guess this doesn't imply that people are benefiting from a multiplicity of programs directly.
Concur. I am with #1, but the reality is only #2 is a true option in our stupidly political world.
You're forgetting the third type - selfish assholes who think being a selfish asshole makes them libertarian, despite countless opinions and lifestyle choices contradictory to the doctrine. See:
Last edited:
heh.
i've recv'd benefits from 6 of those, but never more than one @ a time, and 2 of those i had access to b/c i was "defending freedom"
the other 4 (mortgage interest, 529, UI, EITC*) i had paid into first in order to get out
funny how you can get righteously indignant over the thought of paying into a program that then threatens to become insolvent before you can receive benefit. just goes to show the very notion of ROI does not exist w/in the gov't realm.
*debatable
right, it is reducing my tax liability, but i still have [and pay] a tax liability, unlike those <insert the now-closed bizutch rant thread here>. in fact, this should be treated like any other tax deduction, agree? my used clothes, & lightly used furniture & electronics, college books, and anything else turbo tax prompts me for would also be lumped in, but that might approach a tenuous position, like how i increase our debt to china by shopping @ walmart.
oh, would now be a good time to mention by whom teh loan on my house was backed? a tangled web indeed
oh, would now be a good time to mention by whom teh loan on my house was backed? a tangled web indeed
Let's look at these programs though...
Student Loans - Need to be paid back and can't be expunged from your debt.
Social Security - Pre-paid and you have no choice to NOT participate
Unemployment - Pre-paid and you have no choice to NOT participate
SSI - Pre-paid and you have no choice to NOT participate
The mortgage and other 'tax credits' are a joke. Why do you get a tax break because you bought a house? that makes no sense. Earned Income? Again, just lower the individuals tax rate to make it clear.
The GI bill and related services are payment for services rendered.
Back out the programs that are forced or payment for services rendered and your number of government subsidized programs goes way down.
Did you also notice that the Welfare and below are almost identical percentages? Think there is any correlation there?
so what is ted nugent?....I completely agree with him on almost everything.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/13/you-have-the-right-to-remain-stupid/?page=2
Last edited: