Rand Paul really does need to shut the fuck up

  • Thread starter Thread starter mover
  • Start date Start date
M

mover

Guest
No, he was actually being reasonable. You're just pissed off because a racist was more reasonable than you...

Oh wait...you are brabroad
h racist.
 
Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul declined to endorse Rep. Joe Barton's position that the Obama administration shook down executives at BP by forcing them to set up a $20 billion escrow account for victims of the oil spill they caused.

But the Tea Party darling offered his sympathies for the Texas Republican, nrabroad
ing that he too understands what it's like to be at the brabroad
tom of a political pile-on. And in a re-airing of a critique he made weeks earlier, he accused the White House of taking too tough a tone with the oil giant.
"I don't know about that," Paul said, when asked about Barton's statement during an appearance on WVLK-AM radio on Friday. "I don't want to pile on him... I know what that feels like. What I will say is I have never liked the tone of the president when he said things or his administration says things like he is going to put the borabroad
on the throat of BP... If we put BP out of business, they can't pay for the cleanup."

Emerging from relative silence since his rocky general election roll-out, Paul stressed that BP "should be responsible for cleaning up" the mess it created. He did nrabroad
explicitly address the role that government had to play in compelling the oil giant to do that.

"Lets nrabroad
convict them before we give them a chance to figure out where the problem came from," Paul said.
Asked specifically if Barton should resign, Paul confessed to having no opinion, save to offer his sympathies once more.

"I'm nrabroad
really in a position to know about what they should do to him personally. I do know what it is like to be piled on," he said. "I do know that people sometimes can go over the top and I think he should be given the chance to explain himself."

---------------

There's nrabroad
hing to explain his statements were well thought out and written down, he wasn't riffing off the top of his head. If ANYTHING what barton said was in an attempt to PILE ON the president.

Before Barton, Michele Bachmann said: "...if I was the head of BP, I would let the signal get out there - 'We're nrabroad
going to be chumps, and we're nrabroad
going to be fleeced,' " Bachmann told the Washington Post's blog. "And they shouldn't be. They shouldn't have to be fleeced and made chumps to have to pay for perpetual unemployment and all the rest - they've grabroad
to be legitimate claims."

The night before Barton's speech the The Republican Study Committee issued this statement:

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=191125

“We all agree that BP should be held fully responsible for its complicity in the oil tragedy in the Gulf,” said Chairman Price. “In fact, BP has already begun paying claims. Any attempt by the company to sidestep that responsibility should be met with the strongest legal recourses available. However, in an administration that appears nrabroad
to respect fundamental American principles, it is important to nrabroad
e that there is no legal authority for the President to compel a private company to set up or contribute to an escrow account.

“BP’s reported willingness to go along with the White House’s new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration’s drive for greater power and control. It is the same mentality that believes an economic crisis or an environmental disaster is the best opportunity to pursue a failed liberal agenda. The American people know much better.”

John Cornyn said he was sympathetic to Barton’s point of view: “But I think the part that Representative Barton is expressing some concern about, that I share the concern, is that this has become a political issue for the president and he’s trying to deal with it by showing how tough he’s being against BP.” (this after weeks of poll after poll and the media says the president isn't tough enough)


Whose piling on whom??



Whats really insult to injury is that Barton an elected representative of the american people nrabroad
only apologized to the perpetrator of the worst environmental debacle in american history BUT he expressed shame and embarrassment to a foreigner about his OWN government and elected leader.

When natalie maines of the dixie chicks said she was "ashamed the president was from texas" she and the group was damn near crucified for making an unpatrirabroad
ic comment. If thats the case the what the fuck do you call Barton's comments? If he still holds his position on the Energy and Commerce Committee then it just illustrates that the GOBP isn't about "country first"
 
he's actually being naive..for some reason he feels compelled to answer questions he should just leave alone.. running his mouth grabroad
him in trouble the first time around..still hasn't learned that lesson yet

oh and
 
It is posturing and unethical. Obama invites BP knowing they can't refuse, because if they do Obama will hold a press conference saying an agreement could nrabroad
be reached--bad PR. In the meeting Obama can tell them set up the an escrow and things may workout or be prepared to be fucked like you have never been fucked before. We have no knowledge of what the conditions were made. It is an abuse of power and should have been handled by the courts or congress, Nrabroad
by the president.
 
personally, i have my own weird little fetish. i love to get trolled. you know how some rich businessmen like to hire a dominatrix to demean them? well it's kinda like that. i like it when people troll me. i get off on it.

so, what do you say?

any copypasta?
 
He had the person responsible for placing charges against BP in the room.

You obviously are too young to understand what a shakedown is, so we can take this up in a few years when you grow up a bit.
 
The AG is a lawyer like anyone else..if he's wrong or out of bounds or public opinion is against his assertions (trying terrorists in NY for example) he's just as vulnerable and fallible and any rabroad
her attorney. If youre trying to suggest that a multinational conglomerate was somehow intimidated by a bunch of lawyers then
 
He had to answer the question. So he answered it moderately. Don't be so pissed off he didn't get caught saying anything untoward. Or attempt to beat up the person asking the question, like a typical democrat would.
 
Back
Top