Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 23 May '10 04:06 / 7 edits
    We have all heard by now that Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, has won the primary race in Kentucky from a traditional Rino. Part of his charm is the fact that he is a Washington outsider, however, it now appears that it is also part of his problem.

    http://news.yahoo.com/slap/20100521/ap_on_bi_ge/us_rand_paul

    To begin with, he reportidly said that businesses should have the right to turn away racial minorities. WHAT!! Is he on some kind of robust libertarian LCD trip? Of course, that simply was not enough for Rand. He then went on to make comments appearing as he was defending BP. He said, "What I don't like from the presidents admiinistration is this sort of 'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP', he said in an interview with ABC's Good Morning America. He went on to say, "I think that this sounds really un-American in his critisim of business." He said that BP had agreed to clean up and pay for the costs so that should be enough. He then added, "I think it is part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it is always got to be somebodies fault instead of the fact that maybe accidents sometimes happen."

    First of all, why is Rand Paul criticizing the US Civil Rights Acts, which I happen to agree with along with most Americans, at a time when the titanic is sinking from out of control spending and out of control debt and ballooning government? His libertarian concerns about government intrusion concerning Civil Rights is comparable to him being obsessing on striking out at the plate at age ten in a little league game when he should be focusing on being at the plate in a World Series in game 7 with a full count and the bases loaded and two outs. There is no doubt in my mind that he would help curb the out of control spending and debt, but why must there be such distastfull extra baggage that will go nowhere?

    Second of all, I can understand what Rand is saying about BP. Accidents do happen, so why play the blame game? Of course, why then is BP and TransOcean pointing fingers at each other if we are not to play the blame game? He then chides the Obama administration for talking tuff concerning BP when the simple fact of the matter is that this is all being done for show because Obama received the most campaign donations from BP than from any other candidate in 2008. He may talk tough, but that is as far as it gets. He is simply playing on the emotions of enraged Americans. In fact, since BP now owns the Gulf, why not just rename it the Guld of BP?

    I just can't take it anymore. Why is it that when the Tea Party begins to put candidates in office that may be able to change things they end up being the Marge Schott of politics. All he has to do now is cap it all off and say something like, "You know, if Hitler had not gone to war he would have been one of the greatest men in German history." In fact, that is probably the name of the game now just like it was for Marge. Try to evoke as many interview as possible to dig up some more controversial comments until they go bye bye.

    To sum up, I don't think Rand is a racist, he is just anti-government thus evoking criticisms regarding Civil Rights government intrusion. I also think he is not really defending BP as he is attacking the Obama Administration for intruding in on the private sector. Ironically, however, it is all for show. Like I said, his lack of political savy and dedication to his principles is both a blessing and a curse. We love him for his candor but also end up hating him for it as well. Is it possible for political savy and integrity to ever meet?
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '10 04:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    He then chides the Obama administration for talking tuff concerning BP when the simple fact of the matter is that this is all being done for show because Obama received the most campaign donations from BP than from any other candidate in 2008.
    Talk us through how Obama criticizing BP is "all show" because he received a campaign contribution in 2008.
  3. 23 May '10 04:19
    Originally posted by FMF
    Talk us through how Obama criticizing BP is "all show" because he received a campaign contribution in 2008.
    Talk us through how Obama has gotten "tuff" with BP before I answer that question. If you can't answer the question, then it would appear that he is all talk, no? It is understandable why he is talking "tuff". The public sentiment is naturally against BP at this time.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '10 04:23
    Originally posted by whodey
    Talk us through how Obama has gotten "tuff" with BP before I answer that question. If you can't answer the question, then it would appear that he is all talk, no? It is understandable why he is talking "tuff". The public sentiment is naturally against BP at this time.
    No. You are making an unsubtle insinuation of something that sounds criminal. Talk us through it. Withdraw it. Or just continue to be a furtive and vitriolic little ideological gargoyle.
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '10 04:25
    Originally posted by whodey
    The public sentiment is naturally against BP at this time.
    And Obama is in line with public sentiment and has criticized BP regardless of their campaign contributions. Please explain what it is he is not doing because of the contributions.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '10 04:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    ...the simple fact of the matter is that this is all being done for show because Obama received the most campaign donations from BP...
    Come on whodey. If it's a "simple fact" why you unable to explain it or illustrate it?
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    23 May '10 04:54
    He's a Senator's kid. How is he a Washington outsider?
  8. 23 May '10 07:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    Talk us through how Obama has gotten "tuff" with BP before I answer that question. If you can't answer the question, then it would appear that he is all talk, no? It is understandable why he is talking "tuff". The public sentiment is naturally against BP at this time.
    At least the Democrats tried to remove the cap on damages (and were prevented from doing so by Republican Senators.) The Republican plan to hold BP accountable is apparently to do nothing but criticize anyone who proposes holding them accountable. If the road to the underworld is paved with good intentions then Obama may be traveling that direction but the Republicans are already swimming in a lake of fire waiting for him to bring the cold beer.
  9. 23 May '10 07:54
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    He's a Senator's kid. How is he a Washington outsider?
    His father is in the House of Representatives from a district in Texas that would elect Satan if he had an "R" after his name.
  10. 23 May '10 13:44
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. You are making an unsubtle insinuation of something that sounds criminal. Talk us through it. Withdraw it. Or just continue to be a furtive and vitriolic little ideological gargoyle.
    Obama's new plan is to levy a new tax on the entire oil industry to pay for the cleanup. This measure means that the American people will be paying for this disaster at the pumps. Shocking!! LOL.

    Also, it seems that Obama has broken his promises to the "Green" movement as he has quietly signed off on 25 new offshore drilling sites SINCE the recent disaster.

    http://cofcc.org/2010/05/obama-comes-to-bp-rescue-says-taxpayers-will-foot-the-bill-instead-of-oil-giant/
  11. 23 May '10 13:46
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    At least the Democrats tried to remove the cap on damages (and were prevented from doing so by Republican Senators.) The Republican plan to hold BP accountable is apparently to do nothing but criticize anyone who proposes holding them accountable. If the road to the underworld is paved with good intentions then Obama may be traveling that direction but the Republicans are already swimming in a lake of fire waiting for him to bring the cold beer.
    It seems that the Democrats are able to pass pretty much anything through Congress that they desire EXCEPT legislation that would make BP pay for the entire disaster verses the tax payers. Shocking!! LOL.

    Here is what you do. You take your head out of the sand and fully assess the situation. Thanks for that.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '10 13:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Obama's new plan is to levy a new tax on the entire oil industry to pay for the cleanup. This measure means that the American people will be paying for this disaster at the pumps.
    And you reckon it is a "simple fact" that this is because one of his thousands and thousands of campaign contributors was BP? The rest of the oil industry refused to contribute to the Obama election campaign? Are you sure?
  13. 23 May '10 14:38 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    And you reckon it is a "simple fact" that this is because one of his thousands and thousands of campaign contributors was BP? The rest of the oil industry refused to contribute to the Obama election campaign? Are you sure?
    Don't be daft. All of Washington is in the pockets of these guys. As I said, once they levy the taxes on the entire industry the cost will be given to us at the pump. Its just like the credit crisis. Use Joe Shmoe taxpayer to bail them out as our Public serpents and their corporate cronies go laughing all the way to the bank. In fact, Exxon was suppose to pay billions for their oil slick but ended up only paying about $500 million after it was all said and done.

    Of course, if they don't put the levy on the entire industry that would make BP be the sole owner of the mess and we just can't have that now can we? They could not then artificially inflate the cost across the board at the pumps so that we pay for it. Making BP pay for it all would be like letting the Greek government fall because of their own ineptitude. Instead, we will be having the poor shmuck taxpayers in Europe bailing their arses out.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '10 14:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    Don't be daft. All of Washington is in the pockets of these guys.
    So how is it you claim that BP is getting preferential treatment? First it's BP that is the oil company that has Obama in its back pocket. Then it's the whole oil industry gets it in the neck, not just BP. Then it's the oil industry gets off scot free. You seem unable to stick to your story.
  15. 23 May '10 14:48
    Originally posted by FMF
    So how is it you claim that BP is getting preferential treatment? First it's BP that is the oil company that has Obama in its back pocket. Then it's the whole oil industry gets it in the neck, not just BP. Then it's the oil industry gets off scot free. You seem unable to stick to your story.
    One more time. If they levy the tax across the entire industry this would then increase the cost of fuel at the pumps for EVERYONE. Thus, the tax is then payed for by us at the pump.