Merely pointing out his hypocrisy. He has a reputation here for being a libertarian hero, but few seem to know how many times he's flipped on the things that makes him a darling to the "libertarians".
and btw, he wasn't misquoted, though he has tried to cover up what he said (and this is the story that resulting him in telling a female reporter to "shush").
He said, verbatim:
I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.
You cant explain that away.
and yes, he IS a known crackpot himself, frequently airing on Alex Jones' crackpot radio show, and repeating some of the crazy conspiracy theories to come from there.
To Time magazine he roughly declares that if he were in charge he wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin “get away with it” and on the same day he tells Brietbart.com that now is not the time for chest beating and weirdly seems to call out John McCain as a chicken hawk. It’s all very confusing.
Should predator drones be used against American citizens?
During his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, Paul clearly stated the following:
“I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat. “I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”
One month later, he suggested that drones could be used by the police to kill liquor store thieves on American soil:
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.”
Then, in August 2014, with turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, as the backdrop, Paul seemed to oppose the police’s use of military equipment:
“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.”
Should we continue to spend money on aid to Israel?
In March 2011, he proposed eliminating all aid to Israel:
“While this budget proposal does eliminate foreign aid to Israel, it is not meant to hurt, negate, or single out one of America’s most important allies. This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Israel’s ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies, will only strengthen the Israeli community. The elimination of all foreign aid, including provisions to Israel, is not necessarily a new idea.”
Three years later, he denied ever proposing such a plan:
“I haven’t really proposed (phasing out aid to Israel) in the past.”
Should birth control be banned?
Small-government libertarian Rand Paul introduced a so-called Personhood Amendment, which is in reality a back-door antiabortion, anti-contraception bill.
In 2013, Paul introduced the personhood amendment that would not only have banned abortions but also would have in effect banned many forms of birth control, including some forms of the pill. Paul also supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have given employers an excuse to deny contraceptive health care coverage based on their conscience.
well, if Rand remains true to form, he'll flip flop on the issue in about a month. After all, he did last time he pretended he was Jimmy Stewart and spoke against the drone program.
they get picked up because theyre clear cases of brutality and/or racism. stop trying to excuse bad actors.
Baltimore just like ferguson has a history of this. willfully turning a blind eye to that history and or saying its small percentage of cases DOES NOT EXCUSE ITS EXISTENCE.
No, I just hate stupid people, which includes most "libertarians". Actual libertarians, who don't rate the quotes, are a mixed bag.
Some are like Rand Paul, and shouldn't be anywhere near public office. And frankly, at this point, Rand also deserves to wear the quotes when he calls himself a "Libertarian". (and no, btw, not all democrats believe in solely big government; but as usual you are dismissive of one side while insisting the other can have varying views. but then youre also the guy who doesn't believe left libertarians can exist)
As for why Rand specifically isn't liked much on the left, this:list is a good starting point:
1) Rand Paul opposes gun control measures and voted with his party to filibuster the Manchin-Toomey amendment, which would’ve merely expended background checks to include internet sales and gun shows.
2) Rand Paul, like Ron Paul before him, has repeatedly objected to key provisions of the Civil Rights Act.
3) Rand Paul is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Just because he’s expressed an openness to a life-of-the-mother exception doesn’t make him a hero.
4) Rand Paul, as mentioned earlier, believes that redefining traditional marriage is the leading cause of poverty, rather than a long list of other poverty-creating economic factors.
5) Rand Paul voted against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
6) Rand Paul wants to cut the corporate tax rate in half and attacked Obama’s “you didn’t build that” quote, which was widely taken out of context.
7) Rand Paul is a fan of paleoconservative conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and has appeared on Jones’ show numerous times. He’s also endorsed his share of wild conspiracy theories.
8) Rand Paul proclaimed that the scientific consensus behind climate change isn’t “conclusive.”
9) Rand Paul has repeatedly voted to de-fund and repeal the Affordable Care Act, and would very likely do so as president. He’s also spread “horror stories” about the law in Kentucky even though his state’s exchange is one of the best in the nation.
10) Rand Paul famously filibustered the president’s drone policies, but later suggested that the government could use a drone to gun down a criminal who just robbed a liquor store. He suggested we should use drones against the Taliban.
11) Rand Paul supports the partial privatization of Social Security and once called the program a “Ponzi scheme.” He also referred to Medicare as “socialism.”
12) Rand Paul supports the flat tax.
13) Rand Paul marketed in the widely debunked “Obamaphone” myth, stating: “For those who are struggling, we want you to have something infinitely more valuable than a free phone, we want you to have a job and a pathway to success.”
14) Rand Paul supports Voter ID laws, saying there’s “nothing wrong” with them.
15) Rand Paul, in addition to a series of racially-questionable associates, is a supporter of both states’ rights and nullification, archaic tent-post beliefs held by neo-Confederates.
The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?
The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior. Rand Paul has been one of the few people willing to go on record voting against things he does not agree with, instead of not voting at all.
So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.
Sorry that is wrong. Rand is NOT the libertarian hero you think he is. He makes Mitt Romney look like a man of unimpeachable and stalwart integrity.
Rand says whatever he needs to in order to appeal to the current audience. He is a serial panderer. He has no convictions. In other words: He is just like every other politician
Should predator drones be used against American citizens?
During his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, Paul clearly stated the following:
“I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat. “I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”
One month later, he suggested that drones could be used by the police to kill liquor store thieves on American soil:
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.”
Then, in August 2014, with turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, as the backdrop, Paul seemed to oppose the police’s use of military equipment:
“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.”
He absolutely did it for PR reasons, and nothing more.
Besides, on every issue which has had made him darling to the libertarian crowd, he has flip flopped.
Less than a month after his famous filibuster against the President's ability to drone strike citizens, he reversed course and stated that drones could be used to kill someone stealing from a liquor store.
He is a serial flip flopper. He will pander to whomever is in the room. He is not the man of libertarian integrity his fanboys make him out to be. Rather, he is just your usual politician willing to say anything to win the next race.
Rand says whatever he needs to in order to appeal to the current audience. He is a serial panderer, even for a politician. He has flipflopped so many times...
Cruz isn't much better (actually he's not; he's worse, and a tool)
But on to Rand and why he is NOT the libertarian hero you think he is:
To Time magazine he roughly declares that if he were in charge he wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin “get away with it” and on the same day he tells Brietbart.com that now is not the time for chest beating and weirdly seems to call out John McCain as a chicken hawk. It’s all very confusing.
Should predator drones be used against American citizens?
During his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, Paul clearly stated the following:
“I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat. “I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”
One month later, he suggested that drones could be used by the police to kill liquor store thieves on American soil:
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.”
Then, in August 2014, with turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, as the backdrop, Paul seemed to oppose the police’s use of military equipment:
“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.”
Should we continue to spend money on aid to Israel?
In March 2011, he proposed eliminating all aid to Israel:
“While this budget proposal does eliminate foreign aid to Israel, it is not meant to hurt, negate, or single out one of America’s most important allies. This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Israel’s ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies, will only strengthen the Israeli community. The elimination of all foreign aid, including provisions to Israel, is not necessarily a new idea.”
Three years later, he denied ever proposing such a plan:
“I haven’t really proposed (phasing out aid to Israel) in the past.”
Should birth control be banned?
Small-government libertarian Rand Paul introduced a so-called Personhood Amendment, which is in reality a back-door antiabortion, anti-contraception bill.
In 2013, Paul introduced the personhood amendment that would not only have banned abortions but also would have in effect banned many forms of birth control, including some forms of the pill. Paul also supported the Blunt Amend
bonus stat: walmart, the single largest employer, and the single largest employer of low income workers, could raise every employee to a miminum of 15/hr, and it would cost the average walmart shopping family a whopping 46$ extra per year. added plus: those employees (and their low wages) would no longer need to be subsidized by the public safety net (food stamps, etc)
In order for mcdonalds to need to double their prices if hte minimum wage goes from 7.25/hour to 15/hr, wages would need to be nearly 100% of operatings costs.
they aren't. they are about 20%. and not all employees make minimum wage.
the final analysis was that a Big Mac goes up by about 68 cents. hardly "double". and yes, the cost is neatly paid for by reducing executive bonuses. roughly 15% does the job.
hell, economy and country wide, paying for a raise for -EVERY SINGLE PERSON making less than 15/hour- to 15/hour would cost less than the banking industry -ALONE- paid out in bonuses to executives last year.
they pay similar taxes as we do in the US in terms of taxes as a % of income. yet for that, they recieve all the same benefits we do, PLUS some we dont, INCLUDING healthcare.
whereas by comparison we in the US have to pay another 20% of our income (on average) in addition to what we spend on taxes in our to obtain healthcare. and thats just for the premiums, not including deductibles and copays.
so not only is private healthcare not illegal, but their system is cheaper and more effective and of a higher quality. and most importantly of all, in Canada, just like in every advanced nation (except the US), people don't go bankrupt from getting sick.
Democrats have an electoral college advantage over republicans that is only growing. Out of 270 EC votes needed to win, Democrats have a builtin 242 votes to the GOP's 180.*
The biggest GOP advantage is the tried and true tactic of the challenger party in every cycle: the economy: if the economy stalls or looks bad, the incumbent ALWAYS faces a disadvantage. It's one reason they (either side) are constantly trying to paint the economy as suffering in any election cycle, no matter the reality of the situation.
This one could be interesting. As far as all the traditional statistics are concerned, the economy is booming. On that basis combined with the EC Advantage, an incumbent win would appear to be an easy lock. The problem however is the recovery has mostly captured by the richest among us, with 95% of all recovered income going to the top 0.5%, with the remaining 5% going to everyone else. This has the effect of making the economy feel bad to everyone else, even while Wall Street and the Economy are at record highs, higher than even before the recession.
(*even though it helps the party closest to my views, I still think it needs to go away.)
Cantor was killed by immigration reform. Specifically his support for it. His opponent ran largely on that, knowing that it was Cantor's primary weak spot with base. And it worked.
Make no mistake, his replacement is just as in love with the big banks as Cantor was.
Slashdot Mirror
It's ok folks, its just Mi the Ignorant Bigot repeating the same myths over and over, no matter how many times he's proven wrong.
You were saying something about increasing over the past 5 years?
Yeah...no.
http://skepticalscience.com//p...
it'll take what, maybe a day?, before there's at least half a dozen addons to fix it.
Merely pointing out his hypocrisy.
He has a reputation here for being a libertarian hero, but few seem to know how many times he's flipped on the things that makes him a darling to the "libertarians".
Reporting the man's hypocrisy is not flamebait.
Yes it sucks that it makes your hero no different from the rest of the politicians.
but he is what he is.
and btw, he wasn't misquoted, though he has tried to cover up what he said (and this is the story that resulting him in telling a female reporter to "shush").
He said, verbatim:
I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.
You cant explain that away.
and yes, he IS a known crackpot himself, frequently airing on Alex Jones' crackpot radio show, and repeating some of the crazy conspiracy theories to come from there.
oh look, its the garbage rag the Washington Examiner, dedicated to excusing and covering up the right's mistakes.
and yes youre still a crackpot who doesn't know what hes talking about concerning vaccines or pretty much any other topic.
No he doesn't.
He is no different from every other politician.
He panders to the audience and flipflops regularly.
And hates to be called on it.
Rand Paul’s Incoherent Foreign Policy Mess :
To Time magazine he roughly declares that if he were in charge he wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin “get away with it” and on the same day he tells Brietbart.com that now is not the time for chest beating and weirdly seems to call out John McCain as a chicken hawk. It’s all very confusing.
Rand Paul, serial panderer: 5 major flip-flops that reveal his brazen hypocrisy:
Should predator drones be used against American citizens?
During his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, Paul clearly stated the following:
“I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat.
“I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”
One month later, he suggested that drones could be used by the police to kill liquor store thieves on American soil:
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.”
Then, in August 2014, with turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, as the backdrop, Paul seemed to oppose the police’s use of military equipment:
“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.”
Should we continue to spend money on aid to Israel?
In March 2011, he proposed eliminating all aid to Israel:
“While this budget proposal does eliminate foreign aid to Israel, it is not meant to hurt, negate, or single out one of America’s most important allies. This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Israel’s ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies, will only strengthen the Israeli community. The elimination of all foreign aid, including provisions to Israel, is not necessarily a new idea.”
Three years later, he denied ever proposing such a plan:
“I haven’t really proposed (phasing out aid to Israel) in the past.”
Should birth control be banned?
Small-government libertarian Rand Paul introduced a so-called Personhood Amendment, which is in reality a back-door antiabortion, anti-contraception bill.
In 2013, Paul introduced the personhood amendment that would not only have banned abortions but also would have in effect banned many forms of birth control, including some forms of the pill. Paul also supported the Blunt Amendment, which would have given employers an excuse to deny contraceptive health care coverage based on their conscience.
The following year, Paul denied he s
well, if Rand remains true to form, he'll flip flop on the issue in about a month.
After all, he did last time he pretended he was Jimmy Stewart and spoke against the drone program.
( http://www.salon.com/2015/05/2... )
they get picked up because theyre clear cases of brutality and/or racism.
stop trying to excuse bad actors.
Baltimore just like ferguson has a history of this.
willfully turning a blind eye to that history and or saying its small percentage of cases DOES NOT EXCUSE ITS EXISTENCE.
No, I just hate stupid people, which includes most "libertarians".
Actual libertarians, who don't rate the quotes, are a mixed bag.
Some are like Rand Paul, and shouldn't be anywhere near public office.
And frankly, at this point, Rand also deserves to wear the quotes when he calls himself a "Libertarian".
(and no, btw, not all democrats believe in solely big government; but as usual you are dismissive of one side while insisting the other can have varying views. but then youre also the guy who doesn't believe left libertarians can exist)
As for why Rand specifically isn't liked much on the left, this:list is a good starting point:
1) Rand Paul opposes gun control measures and voted with his party to filibuster the Manchin-Toomey amendment, which would’ve merely expended background checks to include internet sales and gun shows.
2) Rand Paul, like Ron Paul before him, has repeatedly objected to key provisions of the Civil Rights Act.
3) Rand Paul is opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Just because he’s expressed an openness to a life-of-the-mother exception doesn’t make him a hero.
4) Rand Paul, as mentioned earlier, believes that redefining traditional marriage is the leading cause of poverty, rather than a long list of other poverty-creating economic factors.
5) Rand Paul voted against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
6) Rand Paul wants to cut the corporate tax rate in half and attacked Obama’s “you didn’t build that” quote, which was widely taken out of context.
7) Rand Paul is a fan of paleoconservative conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and has appeared on Jones’ show numerous times. He’s also endorsed his share of wild conspiracy theories.
8) Rand Paul proclaimed that the scientific consensus behind climate change isn’t “conclusive.”
9) Rand Paul has repeatedly voted to de-fund and repeal the Affordable Care Act, and would very likely do so as president. He’s also spread “horror stories” about the law in Kentucky even though his state’s exchange is one of the best in the nation.
10) Rand Paul famously filibustered the president’s drone policies, but later suggested that the government could use a drone to gun down a criminal who just robbed a liquor store. He suggested we should use drones against the Taliban.
11) Rand Paul supports the partial privatization of Social Security and once called the program a “Ponzi scheme.” He also referred to Medicare as “socialism.”
12) Rand Paul supports the flat tax.
13) Rand Paul marketed in the widely debunked “Obamaphone” myth, stating: “For those who are struggling, we want you to have something infinitely more valuable than a free phone, we want you to have a job and a pathway to success.”
14) Rand Paul supports Voter ID laws, saying there’s “nothing wrong” with them.
15) Rand Paul, in addition to a series of racially-questionable associates, is a supporter of both states’ rights and nullification, archaic tent-post beliefs held by neo-Confederates.
The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?
The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior. Rand Paul has been one of the few people willing to go on record voting against things he does not agree with, instead of not voting at all.
So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.
Sorry that is wrong.
Rand is NOT the libertarian hero you think he is.
He makes Mitt Romney look like a man of unimpeachable and stalwart integrity.
Rand says whatever he needs to in order to appeal to the current audience.
He is a serial panderer. He has no convictions.
In other words: He is just like every other politician
Rand Paul, serial panderer: 5 major flip-flops that reveal his brazen hypocrisy:
Should predator drones be used against American citizens?
During his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, Paul clearly stated the following:
“I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat.
“I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”
One month later, he suggested that drones could be used by the police to kill liquor store thieves on American soil:
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.”
Then, in August 2014, with turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, as the backdrop, Paul seemed to oppose the police’s use of military equipment:
“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.”
He absolutely did it for PR reasons, and nothing more.
Besides, on every issue which has had made him darling to the libertarian crowd, he has flip flopped.
Less than a month after his famous filibuster against the President's ability to drone strike citizens, he reversed course and stated that drones could be used to kill someone stealing from a liquor store.
He is a serial flip flopper.
He will pander to whomever is in the room.
He is not the man of libertarian integrity his fanboys make him out to be.
Rather, he is just your usual politician willing to say anything to win the next race.
Rand says whatever he needs to in order to appeal to the current audience.
He is a serial panderer, even for a politician.
He has flipflopped so many times...
Cruz isn't much better (actually he's not; he's worse, and a tool)
But on to Rand and why he is NOT the libertarian hero you think he is:
Rand Paul’s Incoherent Foreign Policy Mess :
To Time magazine he roughly declares that if he were in charge he wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin “get away with it” and on the same day he tells Brietbart.com that now is not the time for chest beating and weirdly seems to call out John McCain as a chicken hawk. It’s all very confusing.
Rand Paul, serial panderer: 5 major flip-flops that reveal his brazen hypocrisy:
Should predator drones be used against American citizens?
During his filibuster of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA chief, Paul clearly stated the following:
“I rise today to oppose the nomination of anyone who would argue that the President has the power to kill American citizens not involved in combat.
“I rise today to say that there is no legal precedent for killing American citizens not directly involved in combat and that any nominee who rubber stamps and grants such power to a President is not worthy of being placed one step away from the Supreme Court.”
One month later, he suggested that drones could be used by the police to kill liquor store thieves on American soil:
“I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on. If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him If there’s a killer on the loose in a neighborhood, I’m not against drones being used to search them out, heat-seeking devices being used, I’m all for law enforcement.”
Then, in August 2014, with turmoil in Ferguson, Missouri, as the backdrop, Paul seemed to oppose the police’s use of military equipment:
“The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it. Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security.”
Should we continue to spend money on aid to Israel?
In March 2011, he proposed eliminating all aid to Israel:
“While this budget proposal does eliminate foreign aid to Israel, it is not meant to hurt, negate, or single out one of America’s most important allies. This proposal eliminates all foreign aid to all countries. Israel’s ability to conduct foreign policy, regain economic dominance, and support itself without the heavy hand of U.S. interests and policies, will only strengthen the Israeli community. The elimination of all foreign aid, including provisions to Israel, is not necessarily a new idea.”
Three years later, he denied ever proposing such a plan:
“I haven’t really proposed (phasing out aid to Israel) in the past.”
Should birth control be banned?
Small-government libertarian Rand Paul introduced a so-called Personhood Amendment, which is in reality a back-door antiabortion, anti-contraception bill.
In 2013, Paul introduced the personhood amendment that would not only have banned abortions but also would have in effect banned many forms of birth control, including some forms of the pill. Paul also supported the Blunt Amend
specifically veterans who have died in service to the nation.
bonus stat: walmart, the single largest employer, and the single largest employer of low income workers, could raise every employee to a miminum of 15/hr, and it would cost the average walmart shopping family a whopping 46$ extra per year. added plus: those employees (and their low wages) would no longer need to be subsidized by the public safety net (food stamps, etc)
It's been done.
In order for mcdonalds to need to double their prices if hte minimum wage goes from 7.25/hour to 15/hr, wages would need to be nearly 100% of operatings costs.
they aren't. they are about 20%. and not all employees make minimum wage.
the final analysis was that a Big Mac goes up by about 68 cents.
hardly "double".
and yes, the cost is neatly paid for by reducing executive bonuses. roughly 15% does the job.
hell, economy and country wide, paying for a raise for -EVERY SINGLE PERSON making less than 15/hour- to 15/hour would cost less than the banking industry -ALONE- paid out in bonuses to executives last year.
Dumbfuck.
double the prices? thats absolute bullshit.
to be fair, labor rights and protections are celebrated on Labor Day.
Memorial Day is for the veterans.
-Pro Union, USMC veteran
you are so full of shit.
they pay similar taxes as we do in the US in terms of taxes as a % of income.
yet for that, they recieve all the same benefits we do, PLUS some we dont, INCLUDING healthcare.
whereas by comparison we in the US have to pay another 20% of our income (on average) in addition to what we spend on taxes in our to obtain healthcare. and thats just for the premiums, not including deductibles and copays.
so not only is private healthcare not illegal, but their system is cheaper and more effective and of a higher quality.
and most importantly of all, in Canada, just like in every advanced nation (except the US), people don't go bankrupt from getting sick.
I think the typical Slashdot reader can discuss politics better than the typical pundit I see on TV news
You gotta admit, that's not a very high bar.
youre putting the cart before the horse.
they aren't regulating Uber to protect taxis.
they are regulating Uber because it IS a taxi.
there are no adequate words in the English language to describe the level of stupid you just displayed.
Democrats have an electoral college advantage over republicans that is only growing.
Out of 270 EC votes needed to win, Democrats have a builtin 242 votes to the GOP's 180.*
The biggest GOP advantage is the tried and true tactic of the challenger party in every cycle: the economy: if the economy stalls or looks bad, the incumbent ALWAYS faces a disadvantage. It's one reason they (either side) are constantly trying to paint the economy as suffering in any election cycle, no matter the reality of the situation.
This one could be interesting. As far as all the traditional statistics are concerned, the economy is booming. On that basis combined with the EC Advantage, an incumbent win would appear to be an easy lock. The problem however is the recovery has mostly captured by the richest among us, with 95% of all recovered income going to the top 0.5%, with the remaining 5% going to everyone else. This has the effect of making the economy feel bad to everyone else, even while Wall Street and the Economy are at record highs, higher than even before the recession.
(*even though it helps the party closest to my views, I still think it needs to go away.)
Cantor was killed by immigration reform.
Specifically his support for it.
His opponent ran largely on that, knowing that it was Cantor's primary weak spot with base.
And it worked.
Make no mistake, his replacement is just as in love with the big banks as Cantor was.