• Dream much?

    There's not a chance in hell Rand will run third-party in 2016.

    If he fails to get the RP nomination, or loses in the general election, he'll continue to grow the liberty movement and his following, and he'll run again in 2020.

    He won't alienate the RP, at least not in 2016.

  • You're right...

    Ron and Rand, with often daily contact with Benton during multiple campaigns, were and are completely blind to Benton, whereas you, who has probably come face-to-face with Benton almost zero times, sees all.

  • Such pettiness exhibited here

    Politicians choose the content of their inner circle, which for a national office is generally comprised of dozens and dozens of individuals filling various roles.

    Ron Paul chose Benton for his inner circle TWICE, in both '08 and '12.

    Rand Paul chose Benton for his inner circle TWICE, in both '10 and for '16.

    Few if any of you know anything of significance regarding how well Benton has performed for those campaigns, yet you reject granting Rand the leeway to make his choice.

    The only things you do know are that:

    1) a disgruntled inner circle wannabee, Tom Woods (who I love), has said some vague not-so-nice things about being left out of the inner circle. (Join the club, Tom - there are thousands like you who'd like to be in the Paul inner circle, but there's not room for everyone)

    2) Benton gives kick-ass interviews in support of the Pauls and liberty. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wli-xtJDaS4 and http://www.dailypaul.com/198723/jesse-benton-interview-by-al...

    3) Ron Paul's ads, of which Benton may have played a role, were generally considered the best of all the candidates in '12.

    4) Benton was caught on tape stating of his work for McConnell, "Between you and me, I'm sort of holdin' my nose for two years because what we're doing here is going to be a big benefit to Rand in '16, so that's my long vision", which I found reassuring.

    If Benton's good enough for Ron and Rand, then he's good enough for me.

  • I received my first paycheck….

    …and noticed how much was withheld for the litany of taxes. I wondered right there why the roads weren't paved in gold.

  • No kidding

    Incredibly dumb for Stewart not to understand Rand's cogent anti-prohibition point.

    They really should give him the slot following Maddow.

  • I don't think you read Rand's statement

    If you did, you'd understand that Rand:

    1) acknowledges that "the precipitating crime was theft", but otherwise doesn't actually comment on the Brown incident, specifically, and

    2) is instead pointing out that the War on Drugs has created a TENSION between police and some communities that often leads to tragedy, and

    3) that the War on Poverty has perpetuated a feeling of helplessness in some communities, and

    4) actually calls for personal responsibility ("we are our own keeper").

    You couldn't have got it more wrong.

  • I also thought it an interesting question...

    …until I heard a logical answer:

    Violent protest was coming regardless, so better to announce at night when the children were home from school and workers home from work, as opposed to moving around in the madness.

  • If he's playing the "game"...

    …by calling out the War on Drugs, then I want more of his game-playing.

  • He didn't say it was a race war...

    …instead he said that the War on Drugs has a negative impact on criminal justice, and that it disproportionately impacts people of color, and he's right.

    More precisely, it disproportionately impacts poor communities, of which people of color disproportionately reside.

    And it's a message that "panders" just as much to libertarians as to any other group.

    Bravo, Rand.

  • I'm pro-choice but I'm voting Rand Paul

    Rand Paul won't prevent anyone from getting an abortion.

  • Um, those "rich, white republicans" you speak of...

    …just saw the cost of their labor RISE, not fall.

    Romney's maid can now "come out of the shadows" and compete for other work, shrinking the pool of available maids for Romney.

  • The Patriot Act is due to...

    …expire. That bill extends it.

    Why do you favor extending it?

    If Rand voted for the bill would you be chastising him for voting to extend the Patriot Act?

  • Here's one example...

    …On Maher's show last week he loudly stated that "I'll do everything I can to end the War on Drugs."

    Just having a top contender for a presidential nomination (first one ever) say those words is "seismic".

  • You're ignorant...

    …of the distinction between a bill "not giving us everything we want" and a bill giving us something we DON'T want.

    Such as the Patriot Act.

  • Sloppy thinking

    I didn't respond to your comment on highway funding because it didn't deserve a response. It didn't refute the reality that some people live in areas that don't benefit from highway funding to the degree that others do, if at all. That reality is the essence of redistribution of wealth.

    Your comments about the nation's health decreasing are a non sequitur. You could've stated the same about ANY government program, including the ones that you arbitrarily deem not a redistribution of wealth, but you didn't.

    Thank you for providing the evidence of my assertion that "everybody pays taxes." You're shifting from "49% don't pay taxes" to the "unemployed" who don't "smoke, drive, drink, smoke [sic], travel, or gamble" and who don't own a corporation. You've shifted from 49% to 1 or 2%. That's a huge shift. Soon you'll be conceding that all pay taxes.

    The graph you provided answers your own question, "how does every [sic] pay taxes?" Drill down into 'Misc". You practically have to not have a pulse in order to avoid all Federal taxation.

  • First of all, you dodged my point, that...

    …my wealth has been redistributed to pay for the soldier. To state that, "we should change our government" is besides the point. And it's irrelevant that the soldier pay taxes. My wealth is still being redistributed. THAT is the point in response to your inane, "there is some tangible return for all", as there is no "return" for me.

    Secondly, you missed yet another of my points - that those who receive, say healthcare, also pay Federal taxes, as all do.

    Thirdly, you missed my final point - that the free healthcare can just as easily be deemed "a tangible return for all", as the recipients, say, are now able to be healthy and productive and an asset to me in the form of available labor or as a consumer of my goods or some such.

    You can't deem one government act "a tangible return for all", while arbitrarily deeming another "a handout with no return." You can't have it both ways.

  • You're 100% wrong

    As I previously stated, every single American pays Federal taxes.

    You have a reading comprehension issue (or you think the income tax is the only Federal tax).

  • Reminder...

    …on TONIGHT.

  • Reminder...

    …bump

  • Really? The taxes I pay to build a road on...

    …the west coast gets me "something tangible back in return" when I live on the east coast? No, it doesn't. Instead, my wealth was redistributed.

    And the taxes that I pay to bomb someone in Pakistan, and to payroll some pentagon bureaucrat, and to line the pockets of some weapons manufacturer, a chunk of which gets kicked back to the politicians, gets me "something tangible back in return"? I think not. Instead, my wealth was redistributed.

    And as far as the "total giveaways" you list, each can just as easily be labeled a "something tangible back in return", because they also benefit SOME and because EVERYONE pays for it.