Is Rand Paul an arrogant blowhard, or what?
To reach a deal in Congress over the national debt, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said both political parties need to make concessions, excluding higher tax rates.
Some concession.
“The compromise is for conservatives to admit that the military budget’s going to have to be cut,†Paul said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.†“Liberals will have to compromise and will have to cut domestic welfare.â€
“The compromise is where we cut, not where we raise taxes,†he added.
Maybe Son of Ron doesn’t know what the word concession means.
My idea for a concession: have Rand open a cotton candy booth at the state fair.
In a Republican administration, I can see this moron as Secretary of State.
‘Paul said both feuding parties need to make concessions, excluding less killing.’
My other favorite:
“The compromise is for conservatives to admit that the military budget’s going to have to be cut,†Paul said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.†“Liberals will have to compromise and will have to cut domestic welfare.â€
So, I take it that the military is only there for the conservatives, huh? The Liberals don’t care at all about national defense, right?
That this blisteringly stupid and ignorant f*cking moron is a US Senator is one of the great shames of this nation.
And sadly, he’s not alone…
Sounds like a 12 step program for conservatives..They only have to admit the need for military spending cuts.
1. ” I came to believe that our debt is unmanageable and that the Teabaggers can restore to our sanity”
Paul’s arrogance aside – and it is so helpful of him to state the ground rules that of course we all should abide by – I’d be willing to take him up on his proposition if he was serious about the military cuts.
Our country’s defense budget exceeds the defense budgets of the next ten countries combined, and that includes Russia and China. It’s an obscenity, Dwight Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial-complex come to larger than life realization. Everything about this country is falling apart, but we have the hardware, the manpower, and the money to police the world. This is nuts – it’s one of the clearest signs of an empire in terminal decay.
And so if he’s willing to talk about paring this down by at least half, I’m open to the idea.
Whether this conversation happens today or five years from now, it’s eventually going to happen, because we simply cannot afford the empire of bases and fleets we’ve created. The sooner this is talked up and brought into the national conversation, the better.
Ain’t he something?
moonbat …He’s not serious, and Obama isn’t serious either with his paltry 400 billion over 12 years reduction. Our defense budget spending insanity is here to stay.. it’s metastasized to the point where we can never gain control it. The only reason we start so many wars is to relieve the pressure on our overstocking of military hardware and to give our thousands of generals something to do to justify their necessity.
The right always says both sides to make concessions; and, then, they turn around and play the spoiled little brats about “I’ll turn blue if I don’t get my way!” If only they would hold their breath and turn blue . . . These guys need to be called out for the scofflaws that they are. They do not negotiate in good faith and should forfeit everything for their “poor sport” attitude. I know two year olds who are more mature than these Republican brats.
Back in the days when the Communists were the Enemy — and how I’d like to make a humorous “Remember those days, kids?” remark, but they’re STILL essence of the evil we have to fight — back in those days, anyway, the sober conservatives had a clever epigram about the way the USSR negotiated: “What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is negotiable.”
I’m reminded of that bit of wisdom every day.
“both sides” is euphemism for “the other side”
“…domestic welfare…” So how is ‘welfare’ interpreted by Paul and his fellow elitists? An unearned, undeserved, free handout. Paul would agree with old Grover Cleveland who explained why he vetoed a bill passed by Congress (1887) to give aid to the very poor with, “the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the government, the government should not support the people.”
So this must be a one-of-a-kind transaction – I pay you and get nothing in return? Paul showed us his ugly hand by calling domestic ‘spending’ domestic ‘welfare.’