FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#1422356 - 10/16/13 10:52 PM Rand Paul
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/09/10
Posts: 11887
Loc: NYS
Self-certified doctor. Wow. These people really just make crap up as they go along. Literally.


http://www.salon.com/2010/06/14/rand_2/
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#1422934 - 10/21/13 06:11 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: twocats]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/09/10
Posts: 11887
Loc: NYS
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1422937 - 10/21/13 06:26 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: twocats]
Greymane Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 6848
Loc: Central PA
It's called being a politician. In case you haven't noticed, it is rampant in DC. (Not to mention, Albany.)
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Lawrence J. Peter

Top
#1422995 - 10/22/13 01:16 AM Re: Rand Paul [Re: Greymane]
Timbo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 9856
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: Greymane
It's called being a politician. In case you haven't noticed, it is rampant in DC. (Not to mention, Albany.)

Oh, well then, NEVER MIND.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1423106 - 10/22/13 03:13 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: Timbo]
Greymane Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 6848
Loc: Central PA
I will be very interested to see how many of these morons get re-elected. They say that Congress has a 5% approval rating, but I am sure, when it comes down to it, it will be "everybody else's" 95% that is messed up and "my guy" is alright. I think voting every single incumbent out of office would be a great message.
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Lawrence J. Peter

Top
#1423112 - 10/22/13 05:09 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: Greymane]
kyle585 Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/18/09
Posts: 11228
Loc: Somewhere out there
Originally Posted By: Greymane
I will be very interested to see how many of these morons get re-elected. They say that Congress has a 5% approval rating, but I am sure, when it comes down to it, it will be "everybody else's" 95% that is messed up and "my guy" is alright. I think voting every single incumbent out of office would be a great message.
It would be an outstanding message but I think there is very little chance of it happening. I agree with you on this comment.

Top
#1423160 - 10/22/13 09:58 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: Timbo]
VM Smith Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 11/28/05
Posts: 38160
Loc: Ship of Fools
You're missing the point again. He's not saying that it's okay, and that we shouldn't mind. He's saying that it's what politicians do. The only way to stop it is to get rid of the politicians. Someday even the dimwits might figure that out.

Here's a perfect example of a lying, hypocritical politician. It's just that in 2006, he told the truth. One time, briefly, before he went back into his default position of reflexive lying:

By Katrina Trinko
January 3, 2011 12:50 PM


While President Obama’s economic advisor Austin Goolsbee argued Sunday that a refusal by the Senate to increase the government’s debt ceiling (currently $14.3 trillion) would be “catastrophic” and a sign of “insanity,” that’s not the position the president has held in the past.

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) told Human Events in an interview released today that the decision about the debt ceiling “needs to be a big showdown” in the Senate.

“We are going to cut [spending] necessary to stay within the current levels, which is over $14 trillion,” said DeMint.
_________________________
If you vote for government, you have no right to complain about what government does.

Top
#1423162 - 10/22/13 10:32 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: VM Smith]
Timbo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 9856
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: VM Smith
You're missing the point again. He's not saying that it's okay, and that we shouldn't mind. He's saying that it's what politicians do. The only way to stop it is to get rid of the politicians. Someday even the dimwits might figure that out.

Here's a perfect example of a lying, hypocritical politician. It's just that in 2006, he told the truth. One time, briefly, before he went back into his default position of reflexive lying:

By Katrina Trinko
January 3, 2011 12:50 PM


While President Obama’s economic advisor Austin Goolsbee argued Sunday that a refusal by the Senate to increase the government’s debt ceiling (currently $14.3 trillion) would be “catastrophic” and a sign of “insanity,” that’s not the position the president has held in the past.

Here are Obama’s thoughts on the debt limit in 2006, when he voted against increasing the ceiling:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)

Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) told Human Events in an interview released today that the decision about the debt ceiling “needs to be a big showdown” in the Senate.

“We are going to cut [spending] necessary to stay within the current levels, which is over $14 trillion,” said DeMint.

No, you're wrong. I picked up on the distinctly snarky tone quite clearly.

You can't really be seriously equating the state of the economy in 2006 to the current economic environment. They share virtually NOTHING in common and as such demand entirely different considerations, the possible NEED to extend the debt ceiling being one of them. In '06 Bush was spending for no other reason other than because he could. Today we are faced with crucial choices in order to resurrect the economy that Bush CREATED.

If you think that austerity measures alone will fix the US economy, then you are unfamiliar with the past history of almost every one of the world's economic recoveries.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1423251 - 10/23/13 01:24 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: VM Smith]
Greymane Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/09/06
Posts: 6848
Loc: Central PA
Originally Posted By: VM Smith
You're missing the point again. He's not saying that it's okay, and that we shouldn't mind. He's saying that it's what politicians do. The only way to stop it is to get rid of the politicians. Someday even the dimwits might figure that out.


Yes, VM. My point exactly.
_________________________
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. - Dr. Lawrence J. Peter

Top
#1423291 - 10/23/13 09:27 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: Timbo]
Timbo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 9856
Loc: CNY

Originally Posted By: Timbo
"Today we are faced with crucial choices in order to resurrect the economy that Bush CREATED."

That was an incredibly poorly worded sentence that clearly deserves a rewrite. It should instead read...

Today we are faced with crucial choices in order to resurrect a healthy economy such as the one that Bush inherited from his predecessor.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1423303 - 10/24/13 04:17 AM Re: Rand Paul [Re: Timbo]
Ranger Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 10/23/00
Posts: 25118
Loc: GOD's 1/2 acre
Since Obama has been POTUS, we've been borrowing about a TRILLION dollars a year, at that rate, just how many more years is it going to take to get us out of the mess GWB created
_________________________
TRUTH HAS NO AGENDA

Top
#1423314 - 10/24/13 06:24 AM Re: Rand Paul [Re: Timbo]
sands Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 09/05/05
Posts: 7537
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Timbo
That was an incredibly poorly worded sentence that clearly deserves a rewrite.


They all are \:D \:D \:D

Top
#1423321 - 10/24/13 06:49 AM Re: Rand Paul [Re: sands]
cwjga Online   content
Senior Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 6330
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Timbo
That was an incredibly poorly worded sentence that clearly deserves a rewrite.


They all are \:D \:D \:D


How is it that they forget that Bush inherited a recession also.
The big difference is that he got us out of it, unlike today. And he did not spend 5 years blaming the other guy.


Edited by cwjga (10/24/13 06:50 AM)
_________________________
By an almost 10-point margin, voters would now vote for Mitt Romney rather than Barack Obama. CNN

Top
#1423383 - 10/24/13 11:33 AM Re: Rand Paul [Re: Ranger]
Timbo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 9856
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: Ranger
Since Obama has been POTUS, we've been borrowing about a TRILLION dollars a year, at that rate, just how many more years is it going to take to get us out of the mess GWB created

How long SHOULD it take ? ? ?
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1423384 - 10/24/13 11:38 AM Re: Rand Paul [Re: cwjga]
Timbo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 9856
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: cwjga
How is it that they forget that Bush inherited a recession also.
The big difference is that he got us out of it, unlike today. And he did not spend 5 years blaming the other guy.

1) How do you even COMPARE the degree of severity between the two.

2) Bush did NOTHING to forestall the signs that suggested a recession was COMING. There was NOT a recession at the time he took office.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
#1423387 - 10/24/13 11:50 AM Re: Rand Paul [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 2983
Loc: Geneva-Pennsylvania
Originally Posted By: cwjga
Originally Posted By: sands
Originally Posted By: Timbo
That was an incredibly poorly worded sentence that clearly deserves a rewrite.


They all are \:D \:D \:D


How is it that they forget that Bush inherited a recession also.
The big difference is that he got us out of it, unlike today. And he did not spend 5 years blaming the other guy.


Another Conservative misconception, the United Sates enter into the longest post–World War II recession in December 2007, Bush can't inherit the very thing he owned and created originally.
_________________________
Never make permanent decisions on temporary feelings.

Top
#1423412 - 10/24/13 01:09 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: cwjga]
cwjga Online   content
Senior Member

Registered: 11/06/08
Posts: 6330
Loc: NY

Two Huge Flaws in the Legend of the Clinton Economy


J.D. Foster, Ph.D.

September 7, 2012 at 2:25 pm



Two inescapable flaws mar the Clinton economic legend. One is conveniently papered over; the other conveniently forgotten. Even so, a flawed legend is better than the economic reality President Obama’s policies have produced, so it is no surprise the sitting President has outsourced his economic messaging to the former President.

The first flaw, described here and here, is that President Clinton raised taxes and the economy boomed. The flaw in the narrative is it ignores the passage of time—four years, to be exact. The timeline matters. Clinton raised taxes in 1993 just as the economy was set to take off from a recession, and instead job and wage growth sputtered for four years. The famous Clinton era boom started four years after the tax hike, in 1997, and was triggered at least in part by the Republican tax cut of that year. Four years may seem like a detail, but details like this matter.

The second flaw marring the Clinton economic story is recession. President Clinton did not leave his successor a booming economy. He left President George W. Bush a recession. The recession began in March of 2001, two months after Clinton left office. Even the most rabid leftist cannot blame George Bush for the 2001 recession. It was the Clinton recession.

So Bill Clinton came into office and raised taxes on an accelerating economy, and produced a lethargic economy. Republicans pushed through a tax cut in 1997 and thereby launched the famous Clinton boom. Then Clinton left his successor with a nasty recession. And from this is fashioned a legend of economic performance. Damage done on both ends and a prosperity at least shared by Republicans—and yet the legend lives on.

As long as the legend endures, President Obama sensibly would want to set aside past differences and wrap himself in the Clinton flag. Obama’s alternative is to defend his own record, which he simply cannot do, even giving himself a grade of “incomplete” while his wife pleads for “more time.”

Incomplete after four years? More time to press the case for higher spending, higher taxes, and more regulation, all of which have served only to restrain the most prosperity-oriented economy in the world?

President Obama can be given credit for trying to apply his economic philosophy with fervor and conviction. His has been an all-in presidency from the start. He tried his best, but his approach failed anyway, as was inevitable; a fact reinforced yet again with today’s jobs report showing an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent and 12.5 million Americans out of work.

These statistics don’t tell the whole story, however. The workforce itself shrunk dramatically since Obama took office, as many Americans have given up looking for jobs that are nowhere to be found. The failure was not for lack of thought, or of effort. The failure was assured at the start as a failure of conception. Continuing to follow a bad design can only produce more bad outcomes. In the meantime, with neither a record from the past or a program for the future to tout, outsourcing his economic message to Clinton is about all Obama has left.
_________________________
By an almost 10-point margin, voters would now vote for Mitt Romney rather than Barack Obama. CNN

Top
#1423422 - 10/24/13 01:40 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: cwjga]
Formermac Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 10/22/12
Posts: 2983
Loc: Geneva-Pennsylvania
Some economists in the United States object to characterizing it as a recession since there were no two consecutive quarters of negative growth. To stay with your premise, the countries suffered a recession beginning in July 1990 and lasted until March 1991. But it was not officially declared a recession until December 1992. Democrat Bill Clinton used the economy's troubles as a major weapon in his successful campaign to unseat the first President Bush in 1992. Bottom line, economists can use several variables to describe a recession.
_________________________
Never make permanent decisions on temporary feelings.

Top
#1424230 - 10/29/13 09:36 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: Formermac]
twocats Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 02/09/10
Posts: 11887
Loc: NYS
So, I've discovered that the conservative bubble is actually Gattaca.


Unbelievable: Rand Paul Caught Plagiarizing Science Fiction Movie’s Wikipedia Page While Giving Speech
October 29, 2013 By Allen Clifton 24 Comments
Share on Tumblr
When discussing Republicans, I often point out that I believe many of them live in some alternate reality which only seems to exist in a fictional world that they’ve created in their minds.
In the case of Rand Paul, that world seems to be found in a 1997 science fiction movie starring Ethan Hawke and written by Andrew Nicool, titled Gattaca. Senator Paul used this movie as an example of where he fears we could be headed, but in doing so, seems to have copied excerpts directly from the movie’s Wikipedia page while attempting to explain the plot.
It’s something Rachel Maddow pointed out Monday evening.
While giving a ridiculous speech in Virginia at a “Christian” school where he said that advances in science coupled with abortion rights might possibly lead to eugenics (the process by which undesirable traits in human beings are eliminated through purposeful genetic manipulation), Senator Paul seems to have directly plagiarized Gattaca’s Wikipedia page.



Here’s an excerpt from Paul’s speech:
“In the “not-too-distant-future,” eugenics is common. And DNA plays a primary role in determining your social class.”
And here’s something taken directly from Gattaca’s Wikipedia page:
“In “the not-too-distant future”, liberal eugenics is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class.”
Now, I get if you’re trying to describe the plot of a movie that there might be a few similarities on verbiage and of course the subjects used. Heck, your order of events in how you’re describing a situation might be nearly identical to another person’s. But it’s extremely rare (if not impossible) for someone to accidentally use the exact same words, in the exact same order, as someone else. And it wasn’t this one instance — he did it again… and again… and again.
Paul:
“Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way to achieve his dream of being an astronaut is he has to become what’s called a “borrowed ladder.”
Wikipedia:
“Due to frequent screening, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a “borrowed ladder.”
Paul:
“He assumes the identity of a Jerome Morrow, a world-class swimming star with a genetic profile said to be “secondary to none,” but he’s been paralyzed in a car accident.”
Wikipedia:
“He assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Morrow, a former swimming star with a genetic profile “second to none”, who had been injured in a car accident, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.”
Paul:
“Jerome buys his identity, uses his DNA — his blood, his hair, his tissue, his urine — to pass the screenings.”
Wikipedia:
“Vincent “buys” Jerome’s identity and uses his “valid” DNA in blood, hair, tissue, and urine samples to pass screening.”
Seriously, when it gets to this level of plagiarism, there is no way it’s a “coincidence.”
And as BuzzFeed points out, the Wikipedia page had not been changed after Paul’s speech to try to “frame” him or add his words to the description. All of the logs show that the page was up with these contents before Paul’s speech, proving that either he or whoever wrote his speech took directly from it.
I mean, it’s ridiculous enough that the Kentucky Senator used a 16-year-old science fiction film’s plot as some lame attempt to stir up fear while giving a speech. Then he just compounds his absurdity by plagiarizing the movie’s Wikipedia page.
Is this the level Republicans have now stooped to—plagiarizing the Wikipedia pages of science fiction movies?



It’s sad enough that he was trying to claim that advances in science, coupled with abortion rights, could possibly lead to eugenics. But to plagiarize a movie’s Wikipedia page as part of your blatant attempt to stir fear in a crowd of people? That’s really sad.
I wouldn’t be shocked if Paul hasn’t even seen the movie. I could see someone just telling him about the plot and him viewing that as a great example to perpetuate this asinine claim that somehow science and abortion will lead to eugenics. Then, without actually watching the movie, he decided to pull his “thoughts” on the plot directly from what he read on Wikipedia.
It’s like I’ve said many times before, “It’s getting sad when too often I can’t tell if a story is real, or if it’s from The Onion.”
And this is a great example of just that.


Edited by twocats (10/29/13 09:37 PM)
_________________________
Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.

Top
#1424238 - 10/29/13 10:47 PM Re: Rand Paul [Re: twocats]
Timbo Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/18/12
Posts: 9856
Loc: CNY
Originally Posted By: twocats
So, I've discovered that the conservative bubble is actually Gattaca.


Unbelievable: Rand Paul Caught Plagiarizing Science Fiction Movie’s Wikipedia Page While Giving Speech
October 29, 2013 By Allen Clifton 24 Comments
Share on Tumblr
When discussing Republicans, I often point out that I believe many of them live in some alternate reality which only seems to exist in a fictional world that they’ve created in their minds.
In the case of Rand Paul, that world seems to be found in a 1997 science fiction movie starring Ethan Hawke and written by Andrew Nicool, titled Gattaca. Senator Paul used this movie as an example of where he fears we could be headed, but in doing so, seems to have copied excerpts directly from the movie’s Wikipedia page while attempting to explain the plot.
It’s something Rachel Maddow pointed out Monday evening.
While giving a ridiculous speech in Virginia at a “Christian” school where he said that advances in science coupled with abortion rights might possibly lead to eugenics (the process by which undesirable traits in human beings are eliminated through purposeful genetic manipulation), Senator Paul seems to have directly plagiarized Gattaca’s Wikipedia page.



Here’s an excerpt from Paul’s speech:
“In the “not-too-distant-future,” eugenics is common. And DNA plays a primary role in determining your social class.”
And here’s something taken directly from Gattaca’s Wikipedia page:
“In “the not-too-distant future”, liberal eugenics is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class.”
Now, I get if you’re trying to describe the plot of a movie that there might be a few similarities on verbiage and of course the subjects used. Heck, your order of events in how you’re describing a situation might be nearly identical to another person’s. But it’s extremely rare (if not impossible) for someone to accidentally use the exact same words, in the exact same order, as someone else. And it wasn’t this one instance — he did it again… and again… and again.
Paul:
“Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way to achieve his dream of being an astronaut is he has to become what’s called a “borrowed ladder.”
Wikipedia:
“Due to frequent screening, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a “borrowed ladder.”
Paul:
“He assumes the identity of a Jerome Morrow, a world-class swimming star with a genetic profile said to be “secondary to none,” but he’s been paralyzed in a car accident.”
Wikipedia:
“He assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Morrow, a former swimming star with a genetic profile “second to none”, who had been injured in a car accident, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down.”
Paul:
“Jerome buys his identity, uses his DNA — his blood, his hair, his tissue, his urine — to pass the screenings.”
Wikipedia:
“Vincent “buys” Jerome’s identity and uses his “valid” DNA in blood, hair, tissue, and urine samples to pass screening.”
Seriously, when it gets to this level of plagiarism, there is no way it’s a “coincidence.”
And as BuzzFeed points out, the Wikipedia page had not been changed after Paul’s speech to try to “frame” him or add his words to the description. All of the logs show that the page was up with these contents before Paul’s speech, proving that either he or whoever wrote his speech took directly from it.
I mean, it’s ridiculous enough that the Kentucky Senator used a 16-year-old science fiction film’s plot as some lame attempt to stir up fear while giving a speech. Then he just compounds his absurdity by plagiarizing the movie’s Wikipedia page.
Is this the level Republicans have now stooped to—plagiarizing the Wikipedia pages of science fiction movies?



It’s sad enough that he was trying to claim that advances in science, coupled with abortion rights, could possibly lead to eugenics. But to plagiarize a movie’s Wikipedia page as part of your blatant attempt to stir fear in a crowd of people? That’s really sad.
I wouldn’t be shocked if Paul hasn’t even seen the movie. I could see someone just telling him about the plot and him viewing that as a great example to perpetuate this asinine claim that somehow science and abortion will lead to eugenics. Then, without actually watching the movie, he decided to pull his “thoughts” on the plot directly from what he read on Wikipedia.
It’s like I’ve said many times before, “It’s getting sad when too often I can’t tell if a story is real, or if it’s from The Onion.”
And this is a great example of just that.

What's especially unbelievable, is that Rand Paul has the nerve (in a left handed manner) to purport to even comprehend such an intelligent, thoughtful and compassionate object of art as Gattica. More so when one considers the fact that the story is proudly ANTI-libertarian, in it's scathing commentary that clearly condemns corporatist government and genetic privilege. If he actually watched the movie and STILL interpreted it to be mean opposite (as others do), then he is stupid as well. At the very least, he takes credit for that which is not his own.
_________________________
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >