Poll: Is Rand Paul Presidential Timber?

[ASUMountaineer]

Perhaps stating so would be to your benefit, next time.

Try and keep up.

What are your thoughts on the Rx Drug Benefit?

"Our government," Bush said, "is finally bringing prescription drug coverage to the seniors of America."

"With this law, we're giving older Americans better choices and more control over their health care, so they can receive the modern medical care they deserve," he said.

It is the largest expansion of Medicare since the program was created in 1965...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/ ... .medicare/

[kalm]

I was speaking strictly from a financial standpoint.

Patriot Act =/= socialism
Obamacare = socialism

I don't care with which party you affiliate, it's tough to refute that. You can make a case for the Patriot Act being more totalitarian or fascist in nature, but it's not socialism in any sense of the word.

1) I was always told the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century were socialists.

2). Doesn't Obamacare still allow for private enterprise?

[ASUMountaineer]

I was speaking strictly from a financial standpoint.

Patriot Act =/= socialism
Obamacare = socialism

I don't care with which party you affiliate, it's tough to refute that. You can make a case for the Patriot Act being more totalitarian or fascist in nature, but it's not socialism in any sense of the word.

Cool. So, you did all of that to show that it is not "socialist" in nature, but more "totalitarian or fascist."

Well, I type corrected. Kudos 89!

[kalm]

Mounty is fast becoming one of our best Indy posters.

[AZGrizFan]

Try and keep up.

What are your thoughts on the Rx Drug Benefit?

"Our government," Bush said, "is finally bringing prescription drug coverage to the seniors of America."

"With this law, we're giving older Americans better choices and more control over their health care, so they can receive the modern medical care they deserve," he said.

It is the largest expansion of Medicare since the program was created in 1965...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/ ... .medicare/

Needs to go away.

[AZGrizFan]

Mounty is fast becoming one of our best Indy posters.

He's a fucker. Plain and simple.

[ASUMountaineer]

Mounty is fast becoming one of our best Indy posters.

He's a ****. Plain and simple.

Jealousy is very unbecoming, Tom.

[AZGrizFan]

He's a ****. Plain and simple.

Jealousy is very unbecoming, Tom.

I don't want to be on any list klammy is forming.

[ASUMountaineer]

Jealousy is very unbecoming, Tom.

I don't want to be on any list klammy is forming.

Oh please, just because we disagree on the TEA Party doesn't make me a fucker any more than you supporting Palin made you one. You're not a very tolerant libertarian.

[ASUMountaineer]

What are your thoughts on the Rx Drug Benefit?

Needs to go away.

Of course it does. The TEA Party, which according to BDK existed while Bush was in office, was silent about this when it passed in 2003 and when it was implemented in 2006. That's been my underlying point throughout this discussion. I am not defending Obama by bashing Bush, Obama does enough of that for everyone. I'm simply calling Bush for what he was: a big-government, big-spending social conservative.

[Ibanez]

Patriot Act =/= socialism
Obamacare = socialism

I don't care with which party you affiliate, it's tough to refute that. You can make a case for the Patriot Act being more totalitarian or fascist in nature, but it's not socialism in any sense of the word.

Cool. So, you did all of that to show that it is not "socialist" in nature, but more "totalitarian or fascist."

Well, I type corrected. Kudos 89!

Isn't the "overtly socialist' part about the ACA the individual mandate?

The reason why the dates of the protests matter is to show the hypocrisy of the group. They tolerated Bush and his wars but they were silent all those years. It wasn't until February 2009 did they decided that a man who hadn't been President for a month was already equivalent to Hitler. It's just hypocrisy. At least they mention TARP, I guess that means something.

LIke I said, most of you on here would be the enemy of the Tea Party. You may agree with them economically, but socially they are fucking nuts.

[ASUMountaineer]

Cool. So, you did all of that to show that it is not "socialist" in nature, but more "totalitarian or fascist."

Well, I type corrected. Kudos 89!

Isn't the "overtly socialist' part about the ACA the individual mandate?

The reason why the dates of the protests matter is to show the hypocrisy of the group. They tolerated Bush and his wars but they were silent all those years. It wasn't until February 2009 did they decided that a man who hadn't been President for a month was already equivalent to Hitler. It's just hypocrisy. At least they mention TARP, I guess that means something.

LIke I said, most of you on here would be the enemy of the Tea Party. You may agree with them economically, but socially they are fucking nuts.

I've been told, no.

[kalm]

Jealousy is very unbecoming, Tom.

I don't want to be on any list klammy is forming.

You were about to go on my favorite conk list on Cappy's thread...then I read this...fucker.

[Ibanez]

Needs to go away.

Of course it does. The TEA Party, which according to BDK existed while Bush was in office, was silent about this when it passed in 2003 and when it was implemented in 2006.

BDK is referring to the tea party domain being registered in 2004.A domain and a few people created the name and general idea behind it. But, that means nothing really. You're telling me from 2004-2008 they couldn't meet up. They didn't have their shit together until AFTER Obama won in 2008? Anyone remember "Porkulus?"

[AZGrizFan]

Needs to go away.

Of course it does. The TEA Party, which according to BDK existed while Bush was in office, was silent about this when it passed in 2003 and when it was implemented in 2006. That's been my underlying point throughout this discussion. I am not defending Obama by bashing Bush, Obama does enough of that for everyone. I'm simply calling Bush for what he was: a big-government, big-spending social conservative.

I don't think you'll get many folks to disagree with that last statement. Perhaps it's the overtness, smugness and maliciousness in Obama's approach that rubs people the wrong way.

[YoUDeeMan]

Nice try, Clucky. Please show where I defended Obama by bashing Bush...I'll be waiting.

I simply find it curious that "small government conservatives" that abhor "fiscal irresponsibility" weren't protesting Bush's big-government policies and his fiscal irresponsibility. If that observation upsets you, tough titties.

Look, neither of us support Obama who is a bigger-government, bigger-spending President. The difference is, that I see Bush for what he was: a big-government, big-spending President. Do you disagree with that assessment?

I never liked Bush...didn't vote for him. I'd rather spend our money on things that will directly help this country without giving out handouts or sending our military all over the world so that a few folks can benefit from ridiculous defense contracts.

People should have to earn their benefits. Want some food stamps...clean up your street or a section of highway. Seriously, WTH is wrong with having people pick up trash for an hour or two in order to earn bennies? More skilled people can help take down dilapidated buildings and help build parks. Hell, we should have treadmills attached to the electrical grid and have people walk an hour or so before getting their checks.

Frankly, I don't mind newcomers jumping on the limited spending bandwagon. If it took a MASSIVE Obama campaign focused on spending gobs more money to get people to the breaking point, then I'm all good. What is useless is to continue focusing on what Bush and his supporters did. I'm not concerned about what people did, I'm concerned about what people are doing and will do.

[AZGrizFan]

Of course it does. The TEA Party, which according to BDK existed while Bush was in office, was silent about this when it passed in 2003 and when it was implemented in 2006.

BDK is referring to the tea party domain being registered in 2004.A domain and a few people created the name and general idea behind it. But, that means nothing really. You're telling me from 2004-2008 they couldn't meet up. They didn't have their shit together until AFTER Obama won in 2008? Anyone remember "Porkulus?"

It was a loosely defined group until the proverbial "straw" happened. Bailouts & TARP. Those were in GW's last 3 months in office. And Obama followed that up with trillion-dollar stimulus packages. THAT was the impetus to finally gain momentum and critical mass to be an effective political force. It's really not all that complicated, nor is there some big conspiracy here...

[kalm]

Nice try, Clucky. Please show where I defended Obama by bashing Bush...I'll be waiting.

I simply find it curious that "small government conservatives" that abhor "fiscal irresponsibility" weren't protesting Bush's big-government policies and his fiscal irresponsibility. If that observation upsets you, tough titties.

Look, neither of us support Obama who is a bigger-government, bigger-spending President. The difference is, that I see Bush for what he was: a big-government, big-spending President. Do you disagree with that assessment?

I never liked Bush...didn't vote for him. I'd rather spend our money on things that will directly help this country without giving out handouts or sending our military all over the world so that a few folks can benefit from ridiculous defense contracts.

People should have to earn their benefits. Want some food stamps...clean up your street or a section of highway. Seriously, WTH is wrong with having people pick up trash for an hour or two in order to earn bennies? More skilled people can help take down dilapidated buildings and help build parks. Hell, we should have treadmills attached to the electrical grid and have people walk an hour or so before getting their checks.

Frankly, I don't mind newcomers jumping on the limited spending bandwagon. If it took a MASSIVE Obama campaign focused on spending gobs more money to get people to the breaking point, then I'm all good. What is useless is to continue focusing on what Bush and his supporters did. I'm not concerned about what people did, I'm concerned about what people are doing and will do.

Oh...you mean like a modern day CCC?

Fucking socialist.

[Ibanez]

BDK is referring to the tea party domain being registered in 2004.A domain and a few people created the name and general idea behind it. But, that means nothing really. You're telling me from 2004-2008 they couldn't meet up. They didn't have their shit together until AFTER Obama won in 2008? Anyone remember "Porkulus?"

It was a loosely defined group until the proverbial "straw" happened. Bailouts & TARP. Those were in GW's last 3 months in office. And Obama followed that up with trillion-dollar stimulus packages. THAT was the impetus to finally gain momentum and critical mass to be an effective political force. It's really not all that complicated, nor is there some big conspiracy here...

I get that, I really do. However, By 2008 Bush had spent $795B on war. Wars that were unpopular. I just find it interesting. They were ok with massive military spending and being in Iraq but against the bailouts (which I actually agree with the TP on this issue.)

[ASUMountaineer]

Nice try, Clucky. Please show where I defended Obama by bashing Bush...I'll be waiting.

I simply find it curious that "small government conservatives" that abhor "fiscal irresponsibility" weren't protesting Bush's big-government policies and his fiscal irresponsibility. If that observation upsets you, tough titties.

Look, neither of us support Obama who is a bigger-government, bigger-spending President. The difference is, that I see Bush for what he was: a big-government, big-spending President. Do you disagree with that assessment?

I never liked Bush...didn't vote for him. I'd rather spend our money on things that will directly help this country without giving out handouts or sending our military all over the world so that a few folks can benefit from ridiculous defense contracts.

People should have to earn their benefits. Want some food stamps...clean up your street or a section of highway. Seriously, WTH is wrong with having people pick up trash for an hour or two in order to earn bennies? More skilled people can help take down dilapidated buildings and help build parks. Hell, we should have treadmills attached to the electrical grid and have people walk an hour or so before getting their checks.

Frankly, I don't mind newcomers jumping on the limited spending bandwagon. If it took a MASSIVE Obama campaign focused on spending gobs more money to get people to the breaking point, then I'm all good. What is useless is to continue focusing on what Bush and his supporters did. I'm not concerned about what people did, I'm concerned about what people are doing and will do.

I don't disagree with any of that.

However, the discussion had turned to the TEA Party and that's what we were discussing. If you don't like that discussion, there's a simple way to avoid it.

[ASUMountaineer]

BDK is referring to the tea party domain being registered in 2004.A domain and a few people created the name and general idea behind it. But, that means nothing really. You're telling me from 2004-2008 they couldn't meet up. They didn't have their shit together until AFTER Obama won in 2008? Anyone remember "Porkulus?"

It was a loosely defined group until the proverbial "straw" happened. Bailouts & TARP. Those were in GW's last 3 months in office. And Obama followed that up with trillion-dollar stimulus packages. THAT was the impetus to finally gain momentum and critical mass to be an effective political force. It's really not all that complicated, nor is there some big conspiracy here...

I agree. BDK has already validated my original point. Most TEA Partiers are not completely against fiscal irresponsibility, just an undefined level of fiscal irresponsibility. It just so happened that that undefined level was reached after a Democrat was elected President.

[ASUMountaineer]

Of course it does. The TEA Party, which according to BDK existed while Bush was in office, was silent about this when it passed in 2003 and when it was implemented in 2006. That's been my underlying point throughout this discussion. I am not defending Obama by bashing Bush, Obama does enough of that for everyone. I'm simply calling Bush for what he was: a big-government, big-spending social conservative.

I don't think you'll get many folks to disagree with that last statement. Perhaps it's the overtness, smugness and maliciousness in Obama's approach that rubs people the wrong way.

Maybe it is. Even many donks will agree with Obama's shortcomings as a leader. My point hasn't changed since 2008 when it comes to my observation of Bush and Obama. I'm just seeing where we really disagree.

[AZGrizFan]

It was a loosely defined group until the proverbial "straw" happened. Bailouts & TARP. Those were in GW's last 3 months in office. And Obama followed that up with trillion-dollar stimulus packages. THAT was the impetus to finally gain momentum and critical mass to be an effective political force. It's really not all that complicated, nor is there some big conspiracy here...

I get that, I really do. However, By 2008 Bush had spent $795B on war. Wars that were unpopular. I just find it interesting. They were ok with massive military spending and being in Iraq but against the bailouts (which I actually agree with the TP on this issue.)

a) only one of the two wars were unpopular, and "they" weren't "ok" with Iraq by 2008.
b) I would LOVE to see the accounting to come up with that number. I'm going to go out on a very sturdy limb and guess that about 80% of that "spending" would have been spent whether we were at war or not.

[Cap'n Cat]

We need taxes raised.

[AZGrizFan]

We need taxes raised.

Ain't gonna have a choice if we keep electing democrats. Either that, or just default and get it over with.