Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Mitt Romney will run in 2016 and crush the opposition

This!!!

When you make schit up, and are then challenged on it, why do you think it adequate to post as proof a non sequitur? If you don't have a citation of where he said he was moving left of Hillary, just admit you made it up. It makes you look even worse to post something completely off-point as if it's proof of what you said.

The fact that you are totally clueless does not give you the right to change my words or their meaning.

I clearly said �Rand Paul is bragging� I DID NOT say that he is to the left of Hillary.

I posted his words where he was doing exactly that. He has called her a �gung-ho� �war hawk�

The context of his words is that she stands to his right.
There may be an argument as to which one really stands where. But you are lying about me making up what he said.

Where is your proof that what he said is a non sequitur?

Here is more of what he has said as he pushes Hillary as far right as he can push:
"Those who say we should have done more to arm the Syrian rebel groups have it backward. Mrs. Clinton was also eager to shoot first in Syria before asking some important questions.
Her successor�John Kerry�was no better, calling the failure to strike Syria a 'Munich moment,'" Rand Paul

"To interventionists like former Secretary of State�Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State," he writes. "We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS." Rand Paul

I know exactly what you said. I changed nothing. You've yet to cite where he said that. Or are you confused about the definition of leftism vs rightism?

Rand Paul's position is that both major parties are dominated at the institutional level by leftists, and that there are voters in the Democrat party who, once explained the benefits of rightism (small government, non-intervention, decentralization of governance, strictly limited national government, etc.), would appreciate them. I think he's right. That's how Reagan won two landslides.

Rand Paul clearly has put Hillary to the Right as he appeals to the Left. My citations stand.

You offered no citation of Rand Paul saying he was left of Hillary. You made it up and, when challenged, showed a whole page full of off-point quotes. That's your typical strategy when challenged on your BS.

I cited where Rand Paul bragged that...


Easy look-up on Breitbart TV 24 Aug 2014
Rand Paul: �Dems Scared I Will Run Left of 'Hawk' Hillary�
Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said in the 2016 Presidential election he would be able to attract independents and "even some Democrats" voters nervous about entering into a new Middle East war with a "gung-ho" President Hillary Clinton.

Nope, tax preparer. I work for a CPA. My question is somewhat rhetorical but I would like someone to take a crack at answering it.

In other words, Keynesian economics or as Bush put it voodoo economics.

Rand Paul's statement about ISIS today puts him squarely out of the Libertarian ranks and right in with Republicans.

If anyone thinks we're going to "destroy ISIS militarily" (quoting Rand Paul) without a re-invasion of Iraq, they're fooling themselves. So supporting Rand Paul means supporting ANOTHER war in IRAQ.

No VooDoo in the numbers I posted

Ding.

Anyone who runs for the presidency supports war that's why they are there. I also believe that all politicians especially those who run for president are narcissistic psychopaths.

Voting for anyone for president and expecting a different outcome each time is insane.

Figures don't lie but lairs can figure.

What role did the massive military government spending play in Reagan's economy? Spending under Reagan was unprecedented in peacetime. Are you saying that played no role in Reagan's economy?

Look, I was (and still am) 100% in support of Reagan's tax cuts, 70% is just horrible. But that is not what stimulated the economy. Tax cuts for the rich add almost no perceptible value to the economy as a whole; but they're still the right thing to do.

Conservatives have a bad habit of thinking that tax cuts stimulate the rich to spend more on their businesses. They forget there's a big difference between INDIVIDUAL taxes and CORPORATE taxes. The line of "if you raise my taxes I'll cut your job" is the most ignorant statement on taxation anyone has ever made.

For tax code to influence the economy as a whole, there are two places where you can affect a change.

1 - Corporate taxes, specifically on Capital Purchases. Capital Expenditure is "stuff, buildings, and equipment" and typically needs a butt in a seat to occupy/use. That creates jobs.

2 - Decreasing personal income taxes on the middle class. The middle class is what drives our "consumer economy", NOT the upper class. The rich don't spend their money like you and I do (buying things), that's why they're rich. They spend their money typically on paper investments. Buying anything other than an IPO in the stock market, doesn't do anything for the economy at all.

Reagan's economics was 100% Keynesian; he just never told anyone that it was. The ONLY difference between Reagan and the Democrats was what Reagan spent the money on; military vs. social. Hell, just read up on the stuff written by Reagan's economists.

I wish conservatives knew something about economics beyond the drivel that Rush Limbaugh spews. Rush calls Keynesian economics spending your way to prosperity, which is not what it is; not even close. Keynesian advocates government spending to focus the spend during down economic times. Also when in a recession and people stop spending, government becomes the spender of last resort. Once things level out, Keynes advocated policies that sounded a lot more like Milton Friedman. ETA - Keynes was VERY big on paying down debt during good economic times, so you have room to maneuver during bad economic times.

"Conservatives" don't get that because they fundamentally don't understand macroeconomics.

Whoa...we agree on something.

Where'd he say he was going to do that, though? Him saying what NBC is scared is going to happen doesn't cut it. He knows that NBC is as screwed up in their understanding of left and right as you are.

We agree on a lot of things, like regulating the crooks down on Wall Street. That last post you made was brilliant btw.

+1

Just thought I'd expand on this a bit. There's a reason why Rush says that. It's because that's what Democrats think Keynesian economics is too. They think we should just spend willy-nilly and everything will be rosy. Neither side really understands macroeconomics.