-133 votes

While Rand continues to fight imaginary drone strikes, Elizabeth Warren fights the banks

While the state of Kentucky suffers from the highest unemployment rate and is the nation's poorest state per capita the junior senator from Kentucky continues to do nothing about it. Instead Rand goes on a 14 hour rant about what might happen, what could happen or what might never happen. And after feeding his ego to get on the Rush Limbaugh show he declares a victory for something that we already know. The President will not drone unarmed citizens in the United States. Rand Paul is proving to be more of the Don Quixote of Washington DC and thanks to Rand's weakening of the TSA as Congressman Peter King noted an actual grade 1 bomb has managed to get through our airports.{I bet you didn't hear that on the Rush Limbaugh show}.

But while Randi continues to look in the mirror and brush his curly locks and repeats"one day I shall be President of the United States". There is actually a Senator out there who is fighting a real enemy, an actual enemy and not an imaginary one. This senator has decided to take on the most ruthless vile and destructive organization that has enslaved the American people since its inception, the banks and even though this senator wears the evil communist D at the end of her name she continues to hammer an organization that continues to operate "above the law'. I don't know about you but I certainly haven't seen any drones in my coffee shop but I have certainly seen many American lives destroyed and swept into poverty due to the ruthless greed of the banks.

God bless the libertarians they are a noble bunch but they actually have it all wrong. You see even though the Constitution is important it was never meant to be interpreted by Senators or Congressmen.The last thing you want your politician to do is to try to interpret the Constitution sure Dr. Paul was the champion of the Constitution and I'm talking about Ron here. But that is not the reason he continued to get reelected and remained wildly popular in his district.The real reason Dr. Paul was so popular with his district was because he brought home the bacon. He brought in massive amounts of pork he covered his districts back and they covered his back. So that he could continue his hobby of the Constitution. This is one thing that Rand seems to not understand and that is, his number one job is to take care of the people in his state. Senators were never meant to look at a bill to see if it was constitutional or not that is not a senators or representatives job. There first and foremost job is to look out for their state and their district not to interpret the Constitution.

The fact being our forefathers set up our system in a way that only few are even able to interpret the Constitution and that would be our Circuit Court judges and our Supreme court judges. These are the people who were appointed by our Presidents and are the only ones who are allowed to interpret the Constitution. Senators and Congressmen were not set up to do that. They were set up to do what is best for their state or their district. And I for one certainly do not want Ted Cruz to interpret the Constitution for me. I want him to do what is best for my state and that goes for all my Senators and Congressmen.

Even the President of the United States should not try to interpret the Constitution. The President first and foremost should look out for the American people. And only when you vote to choose a President you should keep in mind that he is only qualified to appoint someone who will interpret the Constitution and not to interpret the Constitution himself.

And personally, I would rather choose a President who has watched out and taken care of their state rather than trying to interpret the Constitution. That is why I would choose the lady from Massachusetts any day over the gentleman from Kentucky to be my President.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

She supported Dodd-Frank

She supported Dodd-Frank which is permanent bailouts of big banks. She's a banker shill just like the rest. We know she's an authoritarian collectivist, but if she was really anti-bankster she'd be calling for action against the Fed. She's not. All the stuff she wants to do is going to shut down more small banks as they can ill afford to comply with new regulation and make big banks bigger as they snap up the little ones. She's too smart not to know it, so it's not ignorance, it's malice.

biggest Bull**it I've ever read on DP

You just don't belong on this site, your a Communist, you support Warren over Paul as a President? you would have a socialist farther left then Obama and the Young Turks in the oval office, you're simply a troll who doesn't belong here. People think your a chick because the way you write sounds like a feminazi.

okay Mr. cbat maybe I don't belong on here.

I used to be a libertarian though, but I am no longer one and you want to know why because libertarians are the biggest hypocrites I've ever met. You always say oh I don't need the government for anything but when shtf you guys are always the first ones in line to try to collect a check from the the government.let's take some examples.

1. Ron Paul – collects a Social Security check.

2. Ayn Rand-chain-smoking welfare case.

3. John Stossel – got a government refund check when his house was destroyed by a hurricane.

Even though I've never collected one dime from the government. I realize that one day I might need some kind of help and I'm not about to condemn those who do need some kind of help.

Oh and I know your excuse you libertarians always use to collect money from the government. You always say "oh well I'm only trying to break the system. I'm only trying to destroy it faster"

Really so you're so much more noble than I am because you're collecting money from the government to break the system and I'm collecting money from the government because I need the help what kind of BS is that

So tell me Mr. C Batt how many times have you collected money from the government. How many times have you gotten some kind of bailout.And if you haven't done it already you will. You all will.

You say that the hypocrisy is

You say that the hypocrisy is what drove you from libertarianism.

I've heard people use the hypocrisy argument for many things, so what I am about to say can apply to anything, not just libertarianism or even political or religious ideas, but anything that people reject based on the reason they call "the hypocrisy".

Please clear your mind and THINK slowly and carefully with me for a minute.

Hypocrisy means that a person's actions don't fit their stated beliefs, correct? The actions are one thing, the stated beliefs are clearly different than that; two different things, right?
So when you were a libertarian, which one did you agree with, the actions of the people, or the stated beliefs of those people?

Did the libertarian ideas become bad BECAUSE people weren't being consistent to them? Or were the actions bad BECAUSE the people weren't following their libertarian ideas?

One of them was wrong, so it's either the ideas or the actions. Which was it?

I'll put it to you another way.

Imagine that you are with some people on a raft that was falling apart in a storm and a boat came to save you, and all of you said that the boat would save you and were adamant about that. If none of the others got on the boat but clinged to the collapsing raft while still saying that getting into the boat would save them, would that be a logical reason for you to NOT get into the boat?

THAT is just as logical as using "the hypocrisy" argument to reject something.


Ill have to think about that one.

what does Ron Pauls

what does Ron Pauls collecting his SS check have to do with anything. He paid into it. He should get it back..

Cmon S we have been through this before.

Ron Paul is a very wealthy man. He makes $60,000 a speaking engagement. He collects $30,000 a month on the government pensions. The spirit of Social Security system was set up for those who were broke when they retired. You know this as well as I do. You do not see the hypocrisy in that.

Small but important

Small but important correction. Ron Paul didn't accept the Govt pension. His pension comes from his medical practice years ago. His annuities come from his stock investments. He may command a price for his speaking engagements nowdays, but he worked hard to get to the point where he commands that price.

As far as SS goes, at the time that Dr. Paul paid into that system, it was sold to people as a trust fund for your future retirement. It was voluntary to pay into, not mandatory, and you voluntarily paid it in order to get your money back when you reached retirement age. He was promised a pay off on his original investment into that system, even if it was just recouping his own money. Its a contract he made with the Govt, and there is nothing wrong with requiring the Govt to uphold their end.

Blessings )o(

BTW I did read somewhere

That he does receive a pension but gives some of it back to the treasury.

Wait your saying that Dr Paul

Does not receive his gov. pension that all retired congressmen receive every month. Im sorry but I do find that hard to believe. Not knocking if he does but why accept measly SS check when you,ve worked against it and then not take a gov. pension that pays you 30,000 a month.

That's right. He refused to

That's right. He refused to participate in the Govt. Pension because he believes its immoral:


"Only ONE congressman who rejects the congressional pension plan, refusing to take a dime because he knows the public can’t get such a break."

"Former congressman Ron Paul refused to participate in the congressional pension system, labeling it "immoral"

"Representative Ron Paul, 76, has refused to participate in the federal system during his almost 22 years representing Texas in Congress.

‘It is Immoral’

“It is immoral that someone spend so much time in Congress that they even should think about getting retirement benefits,” Paul said in a 1997 release on his House website. “To expect those benefits to be paid by taxpayers at rates no citizen can ever hope to actually earn is even more unreasonable.”

Blessings )o(

the spirit of SS? it's a tax, PERIOD.


"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

No, SS was set up to rip people off not as a safety net.

Government greed is second to none.

If Government steals, then there is no hypocrisy is clawing back.

Free includes debt-free!

Ruthless greed of the banks?

You wrote:

"I have certainly seen many American lives destroyed and swept into poverty due to the ruthless greed of the banks."

Just so I understand you correctly - do you think the problems in this country are caused by greedy capitalists?

I'm not against anyone trying to make a buck.

but when you have a situation where the drug dealer goes to jail and a financer of the drug dealer walks off Scott free well that's more than just free market capitalism that's operating a criminal drug cartel.

I agree there

And I give you credit for responding to people's posts.

How about responding to this one:

You wrote "he declares a victory for something that we already know. The President will not drone unarmed citizens in the United States".

I didn't know that. And why would I think that after Eric Holder initially said he COULD foresee such a situation. And how about the Obama administration killing 3 American citizens (including 2 minors) overseas without due process? Obama said that Al-Awlaki was an "enemy combatant". I don't think the president should have the power to determine that but let's put that aside for the moment. But how in the world can it be justified that he can just kill Al-Awlaki's son (and his son's friend) who, to make it even worse, were both minors?!? You're going to trust this (or any future) administration to not "drone kill" citizens in light of this? And are you or are you not a believer that our economy is going to come crashing down at some point soon (likely sometime in Obama's 2nd term)? Look at the chaos in Greece. Imagine that happening here. And if it does, you won't be concerned that our government won't abuse its powers in the name of "maintaining order"? Does "Kent State" mean anything to you?

look I wholeheartedly agree with you.

as a matter of fact as far as we know this al a walkie character never raised one hand to fight as a combatant against our government. All we know about him was that he was a propagandist. Well I will say this though that after World War II the propagandists were the first ones hanged after the war

My whole point is this,I just wish Rand would show just as much passion for the poor people of Kentucky than he does for drone strikes.

I mean that's get real here and I usually don't agree with Krauthammer at all but we just don't have a problem with people getting droned inside the United States of America.
But we do have an unemployment problem and the same with the TSA I mean I really hate to say this but if you have a problem with the TSA going down your pants when you go to the airport then just don't go to the airport. That is your right.I guarantee you if you had a choice of getting in line and going through TSA checkpoint or getting in line with no checkpoint at all what are you going to choose? I mean when you can put a bomb in your underwear and bring down an airplane these days it's crazy to try to handcuff the TSA.that's why Rand should choose his battles wisely and not try to fight for every little issue that comes along. I mean why didnt Rand get up there and rant for 14 hours about the Federal Reserve to me that would be far more effective than what he went on about.

Choosing His Battles

It took over a month for the Obama administration to get back with an answer to Rand's simple question. And they only answered because of the public pressure put on by the filibuster. Rand wouldn't have needed to filibuster had the administration answered his question.

Despite that, you still don't think this was a wise battle to fight?

no I really can't say that I do not.

I mean, come on. The real reason the Obama administration didn't answer that question was because Democrats and Republicans are at war. It's all party politics. The Republicans will not cooperate with Democrats on anything so why do you expect the Democrats to cooperate with Republicans.it's all party politics they're not going to answer any questions from the Republicans unless they have too. Thats just way the games being played right now and that's what's ruining our country.

I mean really, did Rand really expect the Obama administration to say oh yes we do have the authority to bomb unarmed citizens in the United States. I mean really.


Eric Holder pretty much did say that.

By the way, how do you explain McCain and Lindsay Graham backing Obama on this if everything is strictly divided along party lines? I don't think you realize how much of a sham the so-called "2 party system" is.

What is this trash?

So, apparently it doesn't matter whether the federal government observes the Constitution, all that matters is that representatives
"take care of their state," whatever that means. And apparently it is unimportant whether the President has the power to murder American citizens in the United States. And apparently the author is unaware that Rand shares Ron's views on the Fed, and has introduced the exact same bill that Ron has been introducing for thirty years about auditing the Fed: as prelude to abolishing it. Not to mention that Warren is a leftist, whose views on most subjects are totally opposite those espoused by Ron Paul and by libertarians in general.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

what I am trying to say,

is that every governmental institution has the roll to play. Senators and congressmen were voted into office to do what is best for their state, that is what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to look at a Bill and say will this bill help or hurt my state or district that. That is their first priority. Not if it is constitutional or not.

That checkpoint was to set up for circuit court judges to decide. And if you let the system work like that it will work itself out. Just like today a New York circuit judge ruled that banning sugary drinks of certain size was unconstitutional.See it worked itself out

We should be more concerned about what Anthony Scalia or Ruth Vader Ginsberg thinks about a law being unconstitutional then Rand Paul or Elizabeth Warren thinks about a law.

Think about it this way now or never how many times have you said you thought this law was unconstitutional or that law was unconstitutional.

Were you able to do anything about it? no you have no authority to change that law because you think it's unconstitutional. There are only a few people in the government who have any kind of authority to do that and hey're not senators or congressmen. They are Circuit Court judges or Supreme Court judges they are the only ones who can do anything about can do anything about it.

What I'm trying to say is what is the quite obvious, the government was never set up for senators and congressmen to determine what is and what is not constitutional.

She still won't abolish the Fed.

She's just paying lip service to her gullible fans.

Simple Facts and Plain Arguments
A common sense take on politics and current events.


I'm sure Sen. Warren would vote to audit the fed

I'm sure Sen. Warren would vote for a federal reserve audit. Not one person can abolish the federal reserve. You need coalitions to pass a federal reserve audit. How do you know Sen. Warren would not vote for a federal reserve audit? She has not had a chance to vote for a Audit in the Senate.

People of Massachusetts

Call Sen. Warren's office ask if she has co-sponsored or if she will co-sponsor S.209 - Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2013


Are we being "punked" here or something?

This is one of the most unmitigated pieces of garbage I have seen on this site. Listening to this chick would have you believe that Ron Paul' with his refined method of "bringing home the bacon" to a small political subdivision, had mysteriously amassed a nationwide, no correct that, a world wide network of support that rattled the foundations of our sick political system.
She further goes on to opine that the only individuals intelligent enough to properly interpret the Constitution are those that have played the political system the best and have been ASSIGNED a judgeship(operative word capitalized) by a political entity that is looking to stack the deck in it's favor. Well that's been working out well for our rights and freedom's hasn't it?
Rand's priorities towards drones have not been in error. As much as it pains me to admit, I have been able to adjust to the thievery of my government and to even thrive a bit, I don't think I could handle a hellfire missile quite as capably. His focusing upon the drone issue was merely a start to try to have American's realize how far down the path to tyranny and the murder of it's citizens we have allowed our government to travel down.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.


Yeah I thought the same thing.

Obvious troll will troll.

Eric Hoffer

what is it about my post that makes you assume im a "chick"?

Im a dude by the way.

Not when you say the Constitution is uninterpretable

"I'm a dude by the way."

Not in my book.

The Constitution was specifically written for common dudes to read, understand, and interpret because ultimately it's common people who protect and defend the Constitution.

I wasn't referring to you

but if the shoe fits then wear it. If the above written nonsense was your interpretation and not Warren's then I stand corrected about a minor misunderstanding how ever the message is clear about the original posting's content.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.