Paul courts the morons for Iowa win

[HeinBallz]

They do have some incredibly hot women.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

they seriously like to party.      

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0%.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0%.

No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0%.

No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.

I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.

[CNS]

Not long ago Paul was wanting to do away w/ income tax and run everything through a consumption tax.  I would think the rich would love that.   

Also, not sure if that is his current position.  Not like it matters though.  Def one of those things that a president would have 0% of pushing through.

[michigancat]

I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0%.

No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.

I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.

Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.

[LickNeckey]

    the Golden Rule.  Whose idea is that anyway???

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0%.

No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.

I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.

Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.

Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure. The term "redistribution of wealth" as decried by conservatives who favor lower taxes and limited government, is the practice of buying votes by diverting tax dollars to certain groups.

[Kat Kid]

I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0%.

No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.

I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.

Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.

Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure. The term "redistribution of wealth" as decried by conservatives who favor lower taxes and limited government, is the practice of buying votes by diverting tax dollars to certain groups.

Why does the U.S. government subsidize automobiles with roads?  Seems like trains get a raw deal.

[michigancat]

I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0%.

No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.

I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.

Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.

Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure.

How do conservatives decide which federal expenditures are necessary and which ones aren't? You would think someone serious about limited government would want to shrink all government expenses.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0%.

No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.

I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.

Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.

Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure.

How do conservatives decide which federal expenditures are necessary and which ones aren't? You would think someone serious about limited government would want to shrink all government expenses.

True conservatives do want to shrink all government expenses, even the necessary ones such as national defense. As for what is necessary and what is not, I'm not going to engage in a relativist argument with you. Relativism is the ethos of a progressive, but as a close-minded conservative, I couldn't care less. I simply pointed out that when conservatives decry the government's redistribution of wealth, they are opposed to spending tax dollars to subsidize ignorant, slothful lifestyles and businesses that cannot compete in a free market. If you want to equate such expenditures to national defense, that is your perogative.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0%.

No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.

I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.

Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.

Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure.

How do conservatives decide which federal expenditures are necessary and which ones aren't? You would think someone serious about limited government would want to shrink all government expenses.

True conservatives do want to shrink all government expenses, even the necessary ones such as national defense. As for what is necessary and what is not, I'm not going to engage in a relativist argument with you. Relativism is the ethos of a progressive, but as a close-minded conservative, I couldn't care less. I simply pointed out that when conservatives decry the government's redistribution of wealth, they are opposed to spending tax dollars to subsidize ignorant, slothful lifestyles and businesses that cannot compete in a free market. If you want to equate such expenditures to national defense, that is your perogative.

I'm pretty sure all congressmen support various businesses that cannot compete in a free market.

[LickNeckey]

especially ones that contribute large amounts to their campaigns.

but obviously we know that allowing people to make unlimited campaign contributions would never lead to such actions.  i mean i'm pretty sure i just read that in another thread?  didn't i?

[michigancat]

Guess there's no true conservatives out there. Oh, well.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Guess there's no true conservatives out there. Oh, well.

Nobody is perfect. I didn't say they were.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

especially ones that contribute large amounts to their campaigns.

but obviously we know that allowing people to make unlimited campaign contributions would never lead to such actions.  i mean i'm pretty sure i just read that in another thread?  didn't i?

It is true that money = power, but it is impossible to effectively constrain this fact of life. Besides, as discussed "in another thread," money = freedom of speech. Better to at least bring donations into the sunlight as much as possible. If a politician is bought and paid for, let's at least know who bought them, whether that is Exxon or the SEIU.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Guess there's no true conservatives out there. Oh, well.

Your definition of a true conservative would be Ron Paul.

[kstatefreak42]

Guess there's no true conservatives out there. Oh, well.

Ron Paul is pretty conservative.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I didn't watch the debate last night. Was Paul joking? He's such a kook, I can't even tell. Paul says federal tax rate should be 0%.

No, he's completely serious. Good to know that you like taxes, though.

I don't like paying taxes, but I do like having a military, and national infrastructure, and a space program (in theory), just for example. As a conservative, I don't want to abolish all taxes, I just want a leaner, fairer, less burdensome tax system. I support a complete overhaul of the tax code, statically scored as "revenue neutral," dropping income tax rates but eliminating deductions, broadening the base (let's all "have some skin in the game"), and cutting corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

This would seem to be common sense, but it is opposed by the wealth redistributionists (it would easier to just say "progressives" or "socialists") and by the companies that have lobbied very hard for special tax treatment.

Everything you said you want from government is a form of wealth redistribution.

Don't be dense. In the strictest sense, any government expenditure redistributes tax dollars. That doesn't mean there are not necessary federal expenditures such a supporting a military and national infrastructure. The term "redistribution of wealth" as decried by conservatives who favor lower taxes and limited government, is the practice of buying votes by diverting tax dollars to certain groups.

Why does the U.S. government subsidize automobiles with roads?  Seems like trains get a raw deal.

roads came after cars 

why does the gubmint subsize the clothes bizniss by buying clothes for inmates and uniforms for da army?  duuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Ron Paul Quietly Plots Backup Plan.

Rep. Ron Paul says he’s in it to win it and the campaign boasts that it has a comprehensive strategy in place to ensure that happens.

But behind the scenes Campaign Manager Jesse Benton admits to ABC News that the team is plotting a back up strategy in case the congressman doesn’t pull in enough delegates to become the nominee.

If the campaign comes up short at the convention, Benton says the plan is to use all the delegates awarded to Paul as a bargaining chip to force the Republican Party to stick to its limited government platform.

Benton says this could include auditing the Federal Reserve and winding back several parts of the Patriot Act, including roving wire taps which he says were originally written with the intent of expiring.

“I think it would be wise for the Republican Party to allow them to sun set next time they come up for authorization,” said Benton, adding a good portion of the American people are with that.

Benton also admits the policy shift would help Republicans attract more independents, undercutting President Obama’s base.

I completely support using delegates and support as a bargaining chip, but ending roving wiretaps? That's the priority for these clowns? That's what it's going to take to bring these kooks on board?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

@P_Krugman

I have AIDS

t & p