Rand Paul to Obama energy official: Why are you pro-choice on abortion but not on toilets and lightbulbs?

posted at 9:29 pm on March 10, 2011 by Allahpundit

The presumptive answer: Abortion is protected by a constitutional right of privacy and/or bodily autonomy whereas consumer goods like toilets and lightbulbs — and health insurance! — aren’t, and are therefore subject to whatever regulation the feds can dream up in the name of the common good. Paul’s confusion stems from his quaint notion that there are conceptual limits on congressional/executive power even if those limits aren’t specifically enumerated. (See, e.g., the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.) Hasn’t he heard that the Commerce Clause entitles Congress to do virtually anything it wants, especially if it involves, er, “mental activity”?

You’ll enjoy every minute of this. Exit quotation: “I’m sorry about your toilet.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Rand Paul is awesome. Of all the great new people sent to DC recently, he might be the best.

james23 on March 10, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Perhaps you should add some more fiber to your daily diet.

Danny on March 10, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Hey Danny. It’s not so much the density of the “deposit”, it’s the lack of water volume to take away that and more than 2 squares of paper too! :)

BacaDog on March 10, 2011 at 10:38 PM

We have one of the new reduced waterflow shower heads (you can’t buy the old ones anywhere like Lowes anymore because the Feds made it illegal to manufacture and sell). Well the wonderful new NANNYshowerhead cuts down on the water coming out but GUESS WHAT?…

PappyD61 on March 10, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Hey, how come when I watch the DIY shows on liberal Georgia Public TV on the weekend they are all doing monster showers with rainheads and multiple body nozzles and handheld showers? Have the liberals moved on to their next obsession? Are low-flow shower heads just for the little people?

slickwillie2001 on March 10, 2011 at 10:39 PM

I don’t understand why liberals want to get between me and my doctor.

And I certainly I have no idea why anyone wants to get between me and my toilet.

That’s just low. Real low.

Next thing you know the will tell us we can’t run a ventilation fan either.

Lily on March 10, 2011 at 10:39 PM

I find it amazing how Rand Paul is winning over some conservatives who I could never figure out why they kept calling Ron Paul a crank and eating their own.

We lost the branding battle of Ron Paul to to far left hit sites like Littlegreenfootballs, front page magazine, and the New Republic and neoconservative think tanks.

However, Rand Paul knows that the far left radicals are out to get him and he acts cautiously to prevent misunderstandings.

Spathi on March 10, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Do you have a drill? If so, you can have your shower back.

Just pop that baby off the wall, look down the input side, and you’ll see a plug with a small hole in it. Drill that hole out. Voila!

Let the good times roll.

BobMbx on March 10, 2011 at 10:02 PM

And what are you going to do when the shower head police show up at your house?

NoNails on March 10, 2011 at 10:41 PM

It’s pretty simple really.

GE needed a light bulb with a high profit margin.

Therefore, incandescent light bulbs had to be outlawed by the government.

Mr_Magoo on March 10, 2011 at 10:43 PM

I find it amazing how Rand Paul is winning over some conservatives who I could never figure out why they kept calling Ron Paul a crank and eating their own.

Spathi on March 10, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Because Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic douche who cannot see the threat of Islam but somehow think the tiny nation of Israel is what we should be concerned about.

How’s that for a start, and those are all leftist positions.

sharrukin on March 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Because Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic douche who cannot see the threat of Islam but somehow think the tiny nation of Israel is what we should be concerned about.

How’s that for a start, and those are all leftist positions.

sharrukin on March 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM

+100

annoyinglittletwerp on March 10, 2011 at 10:45 PM

Go buy some trisodium phosphate (TSP); all the new detergents are low phosphate.

Mix the TSP with your dishwasher liquid or laundry detergent. Google it for precise instructions.

BacaDog on March 10, 2011 at 10:35 PM

Thank you… where do I buy it? Lowes?

CCRWM on March 10, 2011 at 10:51 PM

canopfor on March 10, 2011 at 10:12 PM
==========================
Couldn’t find that one, but this may work.

OkieDoc on March 10, 2011 at 10:22 PM

OkieDoc:Beautiful,Lol,thanks!:)

canopfor on March 10, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Wow, favorable post on a principled libertarian, who favors decreasing militarism and the empire around the world, at a neoCON site!

AP, are you waking up to the fraud that is the war on terror?

iamse7en on March 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Thank you… where do I buy it? Lowes?

CCRWM on March 10, 2011 at 10:51 PM

Or Home Depot. Generally in the paint department.

cthulhu on March 10, 2011 at 11:10 PM

Go buy some trisodium phosphate (TSP); all the new detergents are low phosphate.

Mix the TSP with your dishwasher liquid or laundry detergent. Google it for precise instructions.

BacaDog on March 10, 2011 at 10:35 PM

I know I’m stating the obvious, but it is serious bullshite that we have to even think of doing crap like in the 1st place.

Badger40 on March 10, 2011 at 11:14 PM

Why are these busybody global warming nutcases always freaks of nature who fill their empty lives by butting into everybody else’s business?…

theaddora on March 10, 2011 at 11:17 PM

NoNails on March 10, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Not an issue where I live they would never make it to my house as the first couple of houses would fill them full of holes.

chemman on March 10, 2011 at 11:23 PM

Looting central-planner says what?

Claypigeon on March 10, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Unfortunately regulations on toilets and light bulbs and such were all a product of Congress, and not by regulators.

Dasher on March 10, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Hey iamse7en,
What’s the opposite of NeoCon?
Presbymalodorousredistributionistfreeloader or
Old Smelly Hippy Bum for short.
Truther.

OkieDoc on March 10, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Hey, how come when I watch the DIY shows on liberal Georgia Public TV on the weekend they are all doing monster showers with rainheads and multiple body nozzles and handheld showers? Have the liberals moved on to their next obsession? Are low-flow shower heads just for the little people?

slickwillie2001 on March 10, 2011 at 10:39 PM

GOOD QUESTION Slick…..(and canophor you rock).

PappyD61 on March 10, 2011 at 11:34 PM

The other sad thing about these Federal standards is that they enforce one set of tradeoffs for the nation, despite local conditions.

It’s easy to think that water conservation is a big deal in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, or New Mexico — but maybe you live in a place where there is ample water? Maybe power is expensive where you live, and it would make more sense to use more water on a shorter cycle?

Just like the 55 mph speed limit appeals to Rhode Islanders far more than Montanans, each national “solution” is favorable for some part of the country but not others.

And, as seen by the famous “bitter clingers” remarks, the mindset that is legislated into being is mostly urban, coastal, unrealistic, and faddish.

cthulhu on March 10, 2011 at 11:39 PM

Heh. Keep it up, Rand, and make a name for yourself! Love this!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on March 10, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Much like a disgusting turd, rand Paul should be flushed ASAP.

Grow Fins on March 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Says the toilet bug who won’t die.

Dominion on March 10, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Wow, favorable post on a principled libertarian, who favors decreasing militarism and the empire around the world, at a neoCON site!

AP, are you waking up to the fraud that is the war on terror?

iamse7en on March 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM

You need to go crawl back under your rock.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 10, 2011 at 11:44 PM

Hey, how come when I watch the DIY shows on liberal Georgia Public TV on the weekend they are all doing monster showers with rainheads and multiple body nozzles and handheld showers? Have the liberals moved on to their next obsession? Are low-flow shower heads just for the little people?

slickwillie2001 on March 10, 2011 at 10:39 PM

GOOD QUESTION Slick…..(and canophor you rock)

Whenever I buy a new shower head the first thing I do is take out the flow restricter.

PappyD61 on March 10, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Dasher on March 10, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Need! MOAR! Rand! Paul!

roy_batty on March 10, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Because Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic douche who cannot see the threat of Islam but somehow think the tiny nation of Israel is what we should be concerned about.

How’s that for a start, and those are all leftist positions.

sharrukin on March 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM

This.

MadisonConservative on March 11, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Because Ron Paul is an anti-Semitic douche who cannot see the threat of Islam but somehow think the tiny nation of Israel is what we should be concerned about.

How’s that for a start, and those are all leftist positions.

sharrukin on March 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM

This.

MadisonConservative on March 11, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Cutting off foreign aid and ending all illegal wars are leftist positions? Oh really, then why is Obama ramping up the wars and foreign aid (or foreign bribing). Some Muslim in a third-world cave will be the last of our worries when our empire collapses due to financial reasons. We simply cannot afford to police the world and have troops in over 130 different countries. Wake up, madison-”conservative.” And by the way, all in all, Muslim nations hostile to Israel actually receive more foreign aid than Israel. So to end ALL foreign aid (a position Rand Paul also wishes to get to), would actually HELP Israel.

George Washingtion and Thomas Jefferson are rolling in their graves due to our despicable interventionism which has created entangling alliances and destroyed our sovereignty.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 12:11 AM

George Washingtion and Thomas Jefferson are rolling in their graves due to our despicable interventionism which has created entangling alliances and destroyed our sovereignty.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 12:11 AM

So you would be fine with keeping aid to Israel given that they are an ally, which is not really true of the Muslims?

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 12:14 AM

Much like a disgusting turd, rand Paul should be flushed ASAP.

Grow Fins on March 10, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Fax machine busted again?

CurtZHP on March 11, 2011 at 12:15 AM

I see the usual trolls are her tonight but I will state the obvious anyway. Liberals must have the saddest life ever. Have you ever seen one that was HAPPY, I haven’t. They fell so guilty all of the time, I don’t understand that. I know that they fell much better about themselves when they can force others to use the things they like. Maybe it is acceptance issues that they suffer from, you know, they were never accepted as equals in the adult world when they were five and already was smarter than everyone else. That could be it. Rand Paul is right about the toilets too, they don’t work. I left them out of my house and bought used ones and put them in over the weekend, the inspector never had a clue and sheit flow away from my house just fine. In a perfect world there would be no Liberals but then there would be no sadness either.

old war horse on March 11, 2011 at 12:16 AM

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 12:14 AM

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

End ALL foreign aid. Israel is one of the biggest entangling alliances we have. Be neutral in foreign affairs. It’s what most of the founding fathers suggested, which is why there were strict rules in the constitution to take foreign action (treaties and military aggression require 2/3 vote by Congress).

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 12:20 AM

Re dishwasher detergent, been going nuts over this til RealClearPolitics had an article about it.

Thanks for the TSP tip, perfectly obvious now that you point it out. Some people use citric acid, I was going to buy some but TSP is easier to get (while they still let us have it…)

They invade every aspect of our lives. Jerks.

jodetoad on March 11, 2011 at 12:21 AM

So you would be fine with keeping aid to Israel given that they are an ally, which is not really true of the Muslims?

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 12:14 AM

That is off the subject a bit don’t you think? but since you broached the subject, yes, giving aid to Israel and not to Muslims is a wonderful idea. If that is what you were asking or if it isn’t it still is a marvellous idea. In fact I think we should give Israel bombs, missiles, nuclear weapons, and anything else they need to defend themselves from their enemies.
Have a beautiful day and God Bless

old war horse on March 11, 2011 at 12:22 AM

I wish we had 100 Rand Paul’s in the Senate. Read ‘em the riot act every time they are within earshot.

Mojave Mark on March 11, 2011 at 12:29 AM

AP, are you waking up to the fraud that is the war on terror?

iamse7en on March 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM

Oh look. It’s posting truther videos again.

AP, ban this crapweasel.

TexasDan on March 11, 2011 at 12:30 AM

End ALL foreign aid. Israel is one of the biggest entangling alliances we have. Be neutral in foreign affairs. It’s what most of the founding fathers suggested, which is why there were strict rules in the constitution to take foreign action (treaties and military aggression require 2/3 vote by Congress).

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 12:20 AM

After being informed about the Treaty of Alliance with France, George Washington wrote to the Continental Congress in a letter dated May 1, 1778, that “no event was ever received with a more heart felt joy.” A few days later, Washington celebrated the new alliance with France by issuing a General Order to the Continental Army that stated, “Upon a signal given, the whole Army will Huzza! ‘Long Live the King of France.’

Thomas Jefferson fought the Barbary pirates with an expeditionary navy far away in the Mediterranean.

They were not isolationists, just wary of overseas adventures which we should all be.

Neutrality in the face of those who are trying to kill us such as the Barbary Corsairs is suicide.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked why they attacked the United states who had done them no harm. The Barbary ambassador replied:

It was written in their Qu’ran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Not much has changed and hoping that they will leave you alone is as vain a hope today as it was in 1785.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Bravo! Rand Paul!
A voice for Americans who believe in liberty.
Taking it into the teeth of the bureaucracy!

Mark7788 on March 11, 2011 at 12:33 AM

That is off the subject a bit don’t you think? but since you broached the subject, yes, giving aid to Israel and not to Muslims is a wonderful idea. If that is what you were asking or if it isn’t it still is a marvellous idea. In fact I think we should give Israel bombs, missiles, nuclear weapons, and anything else they need to defend themselves from their enemies.
Have a beautiful day and God Bless

old war horse on March 11, 2011 at 12:22 AM

No it isn’t really off topic because those who adhere to Ron Paul often have a particular dislike of Israel.

I also think we should do exactly as you have suggested.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Rand Paul to Obama energy official: Why are you pro-choice on abortion but not on toilets and lightbulbs?

The abortionist must flush the fetus without being seen.

Restricting the available light and regulating the waste disposal improves their chances of success.

You’ll enjoy every minute of this.

Surprisingly so, messenger notwithstanding. Hogan was left speechless.

Exit quotation: “I’m sorry about your toilet.”

I’m sorry for the aborted.

The toilet and lighting can be fixed.

rukiddingme on March 11, 2011 at 12:34 AM

From C.S. Lewis: “It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Go Rand!

SoldiersMom on March 11, 2011 at 12:36 AM

No it isn’t really off topic because those who adhere to Ron Paul often have a particular dislike of Israel.

I also think we should do exactly as you have suggested.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Being that more than a few of them are Troofers, they seem to have a particular dislike of America as well.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Being that more than a few of them are Troofers, they seem to have a particular dislike of America as well.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Yeah. They seem to be a strange hybrid of leftist political thought mated with economic conservatism. Everything is our fault and any conflict is to be laid at the feet of our aggression rather than those who actually carry out the deed.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 12:56 AM

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Treaty of Alliance required 2/3 vote of Congress. We form entangling alliances on a whim. Neither is Ron Paul an “isolationist.” He’s a noninterventionist, just as the founding fathers were. Why war in Iraq? No connection to 9/11. Because you ‘think’ they will attack you? Yes. Based on what evidence? WMD. The evidence turned out to be lies.

To suggest that the founding fathers support pre-emptive wars of aggression, unconstitutional patriot act, troops in 130 countries, pouring foreign aid to tons of countries is ridiculous. Yes there are evil people who will want to harm us no matter our policy. But there are many more who are turned to those evil people because of blowback due to our interventionist foreign policy.

You suffer from the same derangement as liberals regarding domestic issues: interventionism. Intervention causes unintended consequences which are disastrous (like CIA ousting dictators and helping Freedom Fighters like Osama bin Laden, or occupying holy land where we have no right to do so), and when we finally see those consequences, we use more intervention to bandage up those unintended consequences, and in the process, create even more unintended consequences. It is for this reason the founding fathers put specific, enumerated powers within the constitution regarding the federal government’s actions. They tried to limit interventionism (both domestic and foreign) as much as possible.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:00 AM

It was written in their Qu’ran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.

Not much has changed and hoping that they will leave you alone is as vain a hope today as it was in 1785.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 12:32 AM

I think we have a lot more in common than I thought. Peace brother Kick Obumer out of the White House in 2012.

old war horse on March 11, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Why war in Iraq? No connection to 9/11. Because you ‘think’ they will attack you? Yes. Based on what evidence? WMD. The evidence turned out to be lies.

I didn’t support the war in Iraq because I didn’t believe that they would ever be capable of democracy. Saddam did have chemical, biological, and he was working on nuclear. We know that because thousands of Kurds died from poison gas used by him. That strikes me as reasonably good proof.

If we were going to take Saddam out then we should have done that and then left.

To suggest that the founding fathers support pre-emptive wars of aggression, unconstitutional patriot act, troops in 130 countries, pouring foreign aid to tons of countries is ridiculous. Yes there are evil people who will want to harm us no matter our policy. But there are many more who are turned to those evil people because of blowback due to our interventionist foreign policy.

Ever heard of the War of 1812? The United States invaded Canada. The founders were not the shy gentlemen you seem to take them for.

or occupying holy land where we have no right to do so),

What ‘holy land’ are you talking about?

and when we finally see those consequences, we use more intervention to bandage up those unintended consequences, and in the process, create even more unintended consequences. It is for this reason the founding fathers put specific, enumerated powers within the constitution regarding the federal government’s actions. They tried to limit interventionism (both domestic and foreign) as much as possible.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Once again you blame us for everything that goes wrong but you never seem to consider that there are others in the world who do mean us harm.

Like the left your first instinct is to blame America first.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM

I think we have a lot more in common than I thought. Peace brother Kick Obumer out of the White House in 2012.

old war horse on March 11, 2011 at 1:02 AM

I certainly hope that we can.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM

No it isn’t really off topic because those who adhere to Ron Paul often have a particular dislike of Israel.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Being that more than a few of them are Troofers, they seem to have a particular dislike of America as well.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 11, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Well the constitution must “dislike” Israel as well, because no where in the constitution does it give the federal government authority to take from the wealth of private citizens and hand it over to leaders of other countries. We love this country too much, and realize that it is not only unconstitutional, but also very detrimental to our national security.

Much of the 9/11 Truth movement has a deep love for America. Reaction to 9/11 has taken many civil liberties, many of our soldier’s lives, and handed over trillions to those in the military-industrial complex. If perhaps it could have been prevented, or if perhaps there some who were complicit in the event, there should be justice.

If you think that a 47-story, steel-frame building could collapse perfectly into its own footprint at free-fall speed – all due to isolated pockets of fire caused by falling debris, then God help you. You’ve been so conned that you ignore the laws of physics.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Well the constitution must “dislike” Israel as well, because no where in the constitution does it give the federal government authority to take from the wealth of private citizens and hand it over to leaders of other countries.

Well the guys in charge in 1785 thought the constitution allowed them to take that wealth from private citizens and handed it over to the Barbary Corsairs as tribute. Of course what do they know they just wrote the thing.

Much of the 9/11 Truth movement has a deep love for America. Reaction to 9/11 has taken many civil liberties, many of our soldier’s lives, and handed over trillions to those in the military-industrial complex. If perhaps it could have been prevented, or if perhaps there some who were complicit in the event, there should be justice.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:16 AM

The 911 truth movement are cowards.

They are incapable of facing the hard and scary truth that there are people out there who want them dead. These people who want them dead are the very same people they have been brainwashed their entire lives to believe are harmless cuddly victims with splendid food and quaint customs.

Its like being raped by one of the Care Bears. A bit hard to really grasp what happened. So they took the cheap and easy way out. America and the west had always been the bad guys in the leftist morality plays, so they latched onto that as the solution. America done it, and they could then go back to their nice safe little fantasies. No need to face any hard truths or reconsider what they had been told their entire lives.

It also had the added benefit of making them feel special, and even superior to those silly fools who actually blame it on the terrorists who did the killing.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 1:29 AM

but you never seem to consider that there are others in the world who do mean us harm.

Yes there are evil people who will want to harm us no matter our policy. But…
iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Ever heard of the War of 1812? The United States invaded Canada. The founders were not the shy gentlemen you seem to take them for.

Disingenuous. U.S. declared war (we should try that for once) on Britain before military aggression. Britain troops were stationed in Canada, aided by Canadian militia. I’m not justifying this war, but at least there was a declaration of war, and your statement suggests Madison was an interventionist by “invading Canada.” And don’t forget Madison’s famous statement:

“In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people …. [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and … degeneracy of manners and of morals…. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

We are creating more wars with our wars.

What ‘holy land’ are you talking about?

Occupying holy land in Saudi Arabia, bases used for covert and other interventionist operations, which has led to terrible blowback. It’s one of the top reasons terrorists use to convert others to become terrorists. Again, this isn’t blaming America for all hatred and evil. It’s putting blame on American foreign policy for inflaming and increasing existing hatred, which leads to leads to even more terrorism.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:42 AM

Occupying holy land in Saudi Arabia, bases used for covert and other interventionist operations, which has led to terrible blowback.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:42 AM

And what was the reason in 1785?

What was the reason in 1801?

What was the reason in 1815?

Was that the reason for the terror bombings of the 1960′s and 70′s?

inflaming and increasing existing hatred, which leads to leads to even more terrorism.

Yeah, I have heard that one before.

If she just hadn’t burned the eggs he wouldn’t have hit her. She just needs to learn to be more careful and not inflame the situation.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 1:50 AM

Well the guys in charge in 1785 thought the constitution allowed them to take that wealth from private citizens and handed it over to the Barbary Corsairs as tribute

Disingenuous and out of context. The Barbary states were demanding a ransom in return for allowing shipping to proceed in the Mediterranean. The Adams administration had been paying the ransom, and Jefferson ended that practice. As he saw it, he intervened to protect American life, liberty, property and free trade, which he believed was one of the proper functions of constitutional government. He did not intervene with the intention of occupying any of those countries for one minute, let alone “for a hundred years,” as some insist about Iraq or Afghanistan.

You would be wise to study the history of false flag attacks, then study the facts about 9/11. Again, if you think that a 47-story, steel-frame building could collapse perfectly into its own footprint at free-fall speed – all due to isolated pockets of fire caused by falling debris – then YOU are the crazy one.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:55 AM

Disingenuous and out of context.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:55 AM

No it isn’t.

Your claim…

Well the constitution must “dislike” Israel as well, because no where in the constitution does it give the federal government authority to take from the wealth of private citizens and hand it over to leaders of other countries.

Is false. They did hand that wealth over to the leaders of other countries.

You simply have a limited and ideologically biased understanding of the constitution.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 2:01 AM

And what was the reason in X, X, X, X?

Again, nowhere does Ron Paul state that our foreign policy CREATED terrorism. It inflames it. You would be wise to read “Dying To Win,” an important look into the history, lives, and psyche of suicide terrorists.

This has been fun, but it’s bed time. Don’t worry, with some more reading and more logic, you might get there. I was once a neocon too.

Don’t underestimate their intentions. Don’t underestimate the intentions of the military-industrial complex.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 2:04 AM

This has been fun, but it’s bed time. Don’t worry, with some more reading and more logic, you might get there. I was once a neocon too.

It also had the added benefit of making them feel special, and even superior to those silly fools who actually blame it on the terrorists who did the killing.

Don’t underestimate their intentions. Don’t underestimate the intentions of the military-industrial complex.

America and the west had always been the bad guys in the leftist morality plays, so they latched onto that as the solution. America done it, and they could then go back to their nice safe little fantasies.

sharrukin on March 11, 2011 at 2:09 AM

You simply have a limited and ideologically biased understanding of the constitution.

So did the principal author of the constitution, James Madison:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Just because the Adams administration paid Barbary pirates doesn’t mean it’s authorized by the Constitution. Point to me the DEFINED power, as specified in the constitution that authorizes the federal government to take money from private citizens and hand it over to leaders of other countries. Game over. Nice playing with you.

Ron Paul is the closest we will ever get in this modern time to someone who actually would “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 2:10 AM

Rand Paul is “flushing” them out!

Done That on March 11, 2011 at 5:22 AM

And people look at me like I’m nuts when I tell them that I will be putting my own machineshop together from scrap pieces and any cheapies I can get, following the Gingery method. Make good old 19th century work via 20th century methods so as to thwart the 21st century bureaucracy. Throw in a few indexers for feedback, a cheap computer and you have the ability to step into 21st century precision manufacturing on your own.

Time expensive? Yes… and the unemployment rate is…

Materials expensive? Depending on your scrounging abilities it is a low cost vocation.

Casting your own showerhead from aluminum? Priceless.

ajacksonian on March 11, 2011 at 6:47 AM

Go buy some trisodium phosphate (TSP); all the new detergents are low phosphate.

Mix the TSP with your dishwasher liquid or laundry detergent. Google it for precise instructions.

BacaDog on March 10, 2011 at 10:35 PM

I know I’m stating the obvious, but it is serious bullshite that we have to even think of doing crap like in the 1st place.

Badger40 on March 10, 2011 at 11:14 PM

We are actually seriously low on phosphorous on a worldwide scale. So since it’s more necessary to use for growing food, I’m imagining that’s why they’re pushing it out of being used in cleaning products.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19048_6-important-things-you-didnt-know-were-running-out-of_p2.html

aic4ever on March 11, 2011 at 7:51 AM

I think the phosphate regulation started as an environmental issue. It had to do with eutrophication of rivers and other bodies of water and was blamed for a host of hazards.

All big debates back in early 70′s, so, yeah it may not be on the shelves if the greenweenie police come calling.

OkieDoc on March 11, 2011 at 8:22 AM

Exit quotation: “I’m sorry about your toilet.

Referring to Rand Paul’s comments on low flow toilets and having to get some type of pressurized flush to make them work, be very careful here.

I had to replace one of those ‘Planet Saving’ low flow wonders so I bought one of those new space age pressurized canister types. If you lifted the lid and looked in, it looked like something from the Space Shuttle. It had a pressure tank, valves, pipes, and other gadgets, but when flushed it went Kaboom! Cost a lot, but it worked great…only one mighty flush required.

Unfortunately, I went on a business trip and returned to find that my new EPA approved wonder had blown a gasket and was flooding the house with its new pressurized plumbing.
Had to replace it with an older, unpressurized model.

Do not buy one of these time bombs

Uniblogger on March 11, 2011 at 8:43 AM

Awesome. Rand Paul puts a fresh perspective on stuff. We need more of this sort of thing.

I think the phosphate regulation started as an environmental issue. It had to do with eutrophication of rivers and other bodies of water and was blamed for a host of hazards.

All big debates back in early 70′s, so, yeah it may not be on the shelves if the greenweenie police come calling.

OkieDoc on March 11, 2011 at 8:22 AM

And like all of those “big problems” of the 70′s, it turned out to be completely baseless. In cities where phosphates have been lowered, they haven’t seen any major corresponding improvement in water quality. The truth is that they could’ve put the effort into more water treatment and done a lot more good.

hawksruleva on March 11, 2011 at 9:12 AM

The truth of it is:
Liberals and Progressives were never interested in “choice”; ’twas infanticide they wanted.

stevezilla on March 11, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Again, if you think that a 47-story, steel-frame building could collapse perfectly into its own footprint at free-fall speed – all due to isolated pockets of fire caused by falling debris – then YOU are the crazy one.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:55 AM

Wow… so its now crazy to think that a tower designed to collapse into its own footprint actually would do what it was built to do? You actually think this isn’t an absolute requirement in a city of skyscrapers????

The Discovery channel covered this in-depth. The design of the towers were such that if there was structural failure (such as from the continual burning of jet fuel, which weakened the steel), the frame would “unzip” all around the tower on that floor. Each floor was designed to collapse into itself within the same footprint. The freefall which you see on tape is a series of floor collapses as each floor becomes fatigued and drops its load on the next lower one. Since this happened in the middle of the floors, and not at the top, each floor continued to give way under the weight of half the tower.

And the “pockets of fire” is a false claim. After the airliners crashed into the towers, there were thousands of gallons of jet fuel which burned continuously, until the heat of the fire and damage to the building weakened the steel enough to give way. While steel melts at 2500 degrees F, it fatigues at only 60% of that… well within the temperature of burning jet fuel.

911 truthers know very little actual truth.

dominigan on March 11, 2011 at 9:48 AM

This is nice to hear, but how about some legislation that reverses each of the restrictions we all hate: low flow toilets, the new light bulbs, dish detergent that doesn’t wash, low flow showers, front load only washers – wrap up in one bill called the “Consumer Pro-Choice Bill”. I’d also like a report on the types of lightbulbs and toilets used in all congressional offices and in the White House.

Over50 on March 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 1:55 AM

911 truthers are just like the worst liberal progressives.

They will only believe what furthers their ambitions, and refuse all other knowledge to the contrary.

dominigan on March 11, 2011 at 9:52 AM

I haven’t figured out why Rand Paul was one of three Republicans to join all of the Democrats in voting against the bill that would have defunded Planned Parenthood, reinstated the “Mexico City Policy,” and more.

Okay, maybe it wasn’t a perfect bill, but now what? They have to start all over? And Planned Parenthood just gets more time to keep killing babies and injuring mothers?

KyMouse on March 11, 2011 at 9:54 AM

We lost the branding battle of Ron Paul to to far left hit sites like Littlegreenfootballs,

Spathi on March 10, 2011 at 10:40 PM

Is LGF stilll there? I left years ago and never went back.

pseudonominus on March 11, 2011 at 10:04 AM

FINALLY!!!

ultracon on March 11, 2011 at 10:18 AM

I often buy compact fluorescent lights for my house. They are economical and they put out a decent amount of light once they’ve warmed up (after about half a minute or so). I like them. I do worry a little about the mercury content, but there is a recycling place in my area where I can take old CFLs so I don’t have to be concerned with disposal myself.

I also like to buy incandescent bulbs because the CFLs don’t fit into all of my fixtures, especially my front porch lights. I don’t turn them on much, so their effect on my electric bill is negligible.

Recently I installed a new toilet in my downstairs bathroom. The flush amount is 1.6 gallons. It works very well. I don’t have to flush it more than once. I’m sure we’ll save on our water bills.

These facts, though, are irrelevant to Paul’s core argument: the government should get out of the way and stop telling us how to run our everyday lives. We can manage them ourselves quite nicely, thank you very much.

Paul makes another good point that many of the government’s environment-saving “solutions” turn out not to be solutions at all. The government is clumsy and incompetent and tends to restrict our freedoms; the market is clever and responsive and tends to liberate us because we are the ones making our own decisions.

The woman Paul was talking to had no coherent response, mainly because Paul’s logic was irrefutable.

Eichendorff on March 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM

The Discovery channel covered this in-depth. The design of the towers were such that if there was structural failure (such as from the continual burning of jet fuel…

And the “pockets of fire” is a false claim. After the airliners crashed into the towers, there were thousands of gallons of jet fuel which burned continuously, until the heat of the fire and damage to the building weakened the steel enough to give way. While steel melts at 2500 degrees F, it fatigues at only 60% of that… well within the temperature of burning jet fuel.

911 truthers know very little actual truth.

dominigan on March 11, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Wow, don’t you feel silly. 47-story building. I’m talking about Building 7 you dunce. No airline crashed into it. No jet-fuel. (Despite that, your narrative of the twin towers is also false – burning jet fuel isn’t hot enough to weaken steel to the point of collapse (never in the history has fire caused a steel-frame building to collapse), and resistance from floors below would prevent a free-fall, but that’s another story and you clearly prefer to ignore the laws of physics.) Anyways, to WTC 7. Falling debris caused “isolated pockets of fire” in WTC 7. Later in the afternoon, this 47-story, steel-frame building completely collapsed at free-fall speed into its own footprint. Why don’t you talk to some physicists, engineers, and demolitions people. Watch the video of it falling, learn about its structure, see the video of the isolated pockets of fire, then compare it to all the other buildings surrounding the twin towers. Watch this documentary.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 11:21 AM

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Do the voices in your head talk to you often?

kingsjester on March 11, 2011 at 1:57 PM

I like him more every day! He has captured the absurdity of our present government.

PattyJ on March 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM

How is it that most Republicans we elect to Congress are men, yet the only ones that seem to have testicles are Rand Paul and Michelle Bachmann?

JSGreg3 on March 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM

No airline crashed into it. No jet-fuel.
iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 11:21 AM

But a 110-story building did crash into it. I think I saw that on TV.

JSGreg3 on March 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Watch this documentary.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I’d prefer to get my yearly colonoscopy.

JSGreg3 on March 11, 2011 at 2:35 PM

George Washingtion and Thomas Jefferson are rolling in their graves due to our despicable interventionism which has created entangling alliances and destroyed our sovereignty.

iamse7en on March 11, 2011 at 12:11 AM

People who know a little bit of history beyond the names of Founding Fathers will remember that Thomas Jefferson fought our first war against Muslim terrorists/pirates in 1801 on foreign soil. It was interventionism at its finest. The only that would bother Jefferson today is why we don’t a firmer stand against the Muslims.

thuja on March 11, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Paul isn’t confused about anything allahpundit, there is no constitutional right to privacy.

woodNfish on March 11, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Yet again, an idiot leftist insists that an authorization for the use of military force isn’t a declaration of war.

Remember, the AUMF was what Congress used to declare war. To insist that an authorization for the use of military force could never, under any circumstances, be considered a declaration of war (as all idiot leftists and truthers insist) is exactly the same thing as saying that the USE of military force could never, under any circumstances, be considered an ACT of war. What the hell do you think military force is for?

Try again, moron.

runawayyyy on March 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Lol! That’s great!

sMack on March 11, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2