Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

WATCH on TheBlaze TV: Latest Updates on Tornado Aftermath, Including Updates From Glenn Beck in Oklahoma

Business

Sen. Rand Paul Pushes Back Against Paul Krugman’s Blog Attacks

Sep. 10, 2012 8:33pm Becket Adams

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman during a roundtable discussion on ABC’s “This Week” briefly debated whether President Barack Obama has increased the size of the government workforce.

“Are you arguing that there are fewer government employees under Obama than they were under Bush?” Sen. Paul asked.

“That’s a fact,” Krugman responded.

“No, the size of both — of government is enormous under President Obama.”

“If government employment had grown as fast under Obama as it did under Bush, we would have a million-and-a-half more people employed right now, directly.”

“Are there less people employed or more people employed by government?” Sen. Paul asked bluntly.

See the exchange [at the 03:34 mark]:

Unfortunately, they weren’t able to go into greater detail because New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker wanted to move the conversation in a different direction. But that’s fine — it’s what happened after the exchange that’s interesting.

As you can tell from the video, the question of President Obama’s expansion of the government workforce was abandoned and never fully examined. Nevertheless, Krugman wasted no time attacking the senator via his blog.

“Rand Paul seemed shocked at my claim that government employment is down under Obama. Of course, it is,” writes Krugman. “But maybe he’s thinking of the fact that since govt employment rose under Bush, we’re still at higher absolute levels than we were a decade ago.”

“That is, however, a strange comparison: other things equal, you’d expect government employment to grow with population (remember, the typical government employee is a schoolteacher),” he adds.

He then directs the reader’s attention to the following graph illustrating the decline in government employment per capita:

“I know Republicans know, just know, that government has surged under Obama. But it ain’t so,” writes Krugman.

Later, after ThinkProgress published a copy of the “This Week” exchange, an emboldened Krugman decided to pop off yet another blog post attacking Sen. Paul.

“Aha. It seems that I was giving Rand Paul more credit than he deserved. Think Progress has the video, and it’s clear that Paul was completely shocked at the notion that government employment had fallen under Obama, rather than soaring,” Krugman writes.

He went on to explain why, he thinks, Sen. Paul just doesn’t get it:

How did that happen? Almost surely it’s a case of a zombie lie that has gone unchallenged in the hermetic world of movement conservatism, so that people like Paul know, just know, something that ain’t so. I wrote about this way back: the usual suspects seized on the Census bulge in employment as evidence of a big-government surge; and because nobody in that business ever admits having been wrong, this became a “fact” that people like Rand Paul believe. He wouldn’t have made this mistake if he ever read or listened to an analysis from nonpartisan sources, but he evidently doesn’t.

But you see, there’s a problem with Krugman’s original blog post (we’ll ignore his wholly unnecessary and adolescent victory lap): His claim that the government workforce has declined under President Obama only works if we combine federal with state and local employment numbers.

Why is this a problem for Krugman? Because the only workforce the Oval Office can expand, the only part of government it has the ability to grow and keep employed, is the federal workforce. State and local — which have indeed fallen — are more or less out of his reach.

And the federal workforce has grown.

“Professor Krugman argues statistics in his usual fashion: making them up or adding in irrelevant information to prove his predetermined point,” Sen. Paul said in a statement posted to his Facebook page, “he and I were debating the size of government workforce under President Obama. The only logical number we could have been discussing was the number of federal workers. Since the last time I checked, Barack Obama was the President, not a mayor or governor.”

As it turns out, there are more federal workers under President Obama then there were under President George W. Bush [the spike in hiring was for the census]:

“The number of federal employees has risen under President Obama. There were 2,790,000 federal workers in January 2009 when the president took office, and now there are 2,804,000 workers,” Michael R. Strain writes for the American Enterprise Institute.

“In only one month of Mr. Bush’s presidency was the federal workforce larger than it was during the month of Mr. Obama’s presidency when the federal workforce was at its smallest. With the exception of that one month, Mr. Obama’s minimum is larger than Mr. Bush’s maximum,” Strain adds.

Bottom line: When you combine state, local, and federal employment numbers, the public sector workforce has decreased dramatically. But Sen. Paul claims he was referring specifically to President Obama and the expansion of the federal workforce.

The only part of government that has decreased during the president’s first term is the part that’s largely out of his hands. And as for the part of the government workforce the White House can grow? That has increased.

“[P]rofessor Krugman added in local and state workers to inflate this number, an irrelevant point at best. In fact, it was a disingenuous argument, which he then astonishingly gloated about making on his blog,” Sen. Paul writes on his Facebook page.

But let’s be honest here: Krugman’s decision to lambaste Sen. Paul shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. After all, the Kentucky senator is not the only Paul in his family to have the Nobel Prize-winning economist write something cheap about him following a debate on policy and economic issues.

“I prefer to stick to the facts — and the facts are, there are 143,000 more federal workers since President Obama took office. I urge Professor Krugman to join me in debating actual, relevant statistics,” the senator added.

Do you think Krugman will take him up on the challenge?

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Front page photo source courtesy: Gage Skidmore / Flickr. This story has been updated.

Benghazi, IRS, AP...What's next? Only TheBlaze TV offers the truth from Glenn Beck, Andrew Wilkow, and Real News from TheBlaze. Get instant access and a free trial here.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (103)

Eastinfection
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:13pm
@ANYONEWHOGIVESACRAP: Ron Paul is too old to play games. He decided long ago to be uncompromising. Rand is an opportunistic career politician that has been influenced by Pops but needs to “earn a freiken living”. He has NO other skill set. He is Meg McCain with a better vocabulary. He will sell out. Give him time. Never lived in the REAL world. So, so, so, … sorry to say. but it’s true.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Eastinfection
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:21pm
  oh .. forgot his huge ophthalmology career (gimme a break) He’s getting a whiff. He smells the special-interest payday.
  
  Report this comment
- pissantno.10
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:23pm
  sooooy cide east is your only hope take soy bean with you hahahaha
  
  Report this comment
- DarkJello
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:59pm
  Wait until Paul Krugman realizes that he and Rand Paul almost share the same name.
  
  Then he will brag on his website that his “P a u l” comes before Rand’s “P a u l”. Game, set, match!!
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:34am
  You know what my real hope is? ..That by the time i die (i’m 39) my grandchildren’s 2-party system will be between leftist Libertarians (pro-choice) and right-leaning Libertarians (pro-life) and the the rest of you insane, liberty hating losers can keep your telling-other-people-how-to-live stuff to your household, & family- the way God intended fascism to be.
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:41am
  PS.. PISSANT ..i’m very flattered that more than 1/2 of your last 10 posts were directed at me… “Someone” has a “stalker”… No harm, no foul PISS- we all need a goal in life!
  
  Report this comment
- sasquatch08
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:45am
  @EASTINFECTION:
  
  Actually, nothing you say is true. Rand Paul is an ophthalmologist and has been board certified as such since 1993. He opened his own practice (that would be a BUSINESS) in 2007 before running for political office in 2010.
  
  Try using Google before you spout off with obvious untruths.
  
  Report this comment
- khadijahbintmuhammad
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:47am
  So, you don’t think that Obama smelled a payday?
  
  Look at his net worth before and then after entering politics, and ask youself how a public servant gets so rich on a government salary.
  
  Sheesh.
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 9:23am
  @KHAD.. Not sure how you inferred my criticism of Rand as an endorsement of Obama. ..Of course i think Obama smelled a payday. They ALL do. Maybe Harry Reid more so than most. Very few politicians make a living on just their salary. Gifts, “donations”, insider trading. You name it… they’ve got their filthy fingers in it.
  @SASQUATCH.. Thanks for calling me a liar then saying the same exact thing i said. So he ran a biz for 3 years before entering politics. Wow. He’s practically Lee Iacocca now is guess.
  
  Report this comment
- kenboo1
  Posted on September 12, 2012 at 9:30pm
  Eastinfection
  
  Both of the Pauls are doctors and probably took a pay cut to do the political thing. Your comment: “Rand is an opportunistic career politician that has been influenced by Pops but needs to “earn a freiken living” is void of substance and shows deep abiding ignorance to facts.
  
  Have you thought that the two might actually care more about the country and less about their personal pocket books… Something we need a little more of…
  
  Furthermore, the federal government spends way too much money. The only function of the Federal government is to provide for the common defense… How well has it succeeded in just protecting the border states with Mexico…
  
  Report this comment
tucanofulano
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:02pm
Paulie is just another feeble-minded crooked academic lier.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mharry860
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:10pm
  You had me there, I forgot Krugman’s first name. Krugman is a dirty word with me and Zero Hedge.
  
  Report this comment
Daveed
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:49pm
5 stars for Rand Paul. I believe him. Not corrupt media.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ginsberg
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:07pm
  Does anyone at the blaze understand what per capita means? This is a Nobel prize winner in economics…the blaze deliberately chose to misrepresent his blog post, and what he is saying…per capita federal employment is down, is 100% correct.
  
  Report this comment
- mharry860
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:07pm
  Indeed, we need a Ryan/Paul ticket in the near future.
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:34pm
  My share of the Fed. Debt has gone up $5,500 in one year. That’s a Per Capita number!
  
  Report this comment
- DarkJello
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:55pm
  @ginsberg:
  
  Nobody actually cares about some tiny peripheral issue. Krug twists, not news.
  
  Owebama and team are spending in an “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic” way. America is on the verge. Do you disagree?
  
  Report this comment
- civilman43
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 11:28pm
  Hey Ginsberg that is irrelevant. We are talking about the employment hussein is responsible for you lib lard.
  
  Report this comment
- ivan90
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 11:38pm
  Paul Krugman is a Nobel prize winning economist? What does that prove? He won a liberal ribbon, so that makes his opinion fact? It proves nothing more than he approaches every issue from the left.
  
  Report this comment
- IDAcanyonman92
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:24am
  they give nobel prizes around like its candy now.. so whats you point.. they gave obama one for what again? ohh yea.. nothing..
  
  Report this comment
- angelatc
  Posted on September 13, 2012 at 10:43am
  He was right. And what made Krugman’s assertion even more disingenuous was that in the previous two minutes, he called the military cuts a lie. Meaning that cutting growth in the military isn’t really a cut, but cutting growth in federal government is.
  
  Report this comment
OhSnappage
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:44pm
A wasted debate when your opponent has proven time and time again that they are not grounded in reality and ignore the facts. Like every other whiney little liberal Krugman would raise rhetoric, phony “polls”, diversion and offer counter excuses rather than acknowledge anything other than one’s own perspective. Krugman is devoted and set in his mindset, if he is convinced that his cat reads the paper to him each evening in a cockney accent, who wants to tell him he’s wrong.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Wool-Free Vision
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:39pm
This just in: Paul Krugman is a liar and a fool.

Anyone who claims to be shocked by this revelation is also one of the above, if not both.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- inblack
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 12:28pm
  Krugman is a cry baby. He is the nobel prize winner and he blames somebody else for Obama’s lack of economic success. Do any libs take responsibility for anything? Krugman wants people to worship his opinion and the fact is nobel prizes are a joke and Krugman is the poster child for nobel prize mistakes.
  
  I laughed when the EXCUSE for oblahma not passing a budget was he only had a super majority for a few months. Every Republican president since Eisenhower has passed a budget when there was a total majority AGAINST them. Hell even Bill Clinton had 3 out of 4 congresses against him and passed budgets 8 years in a row.
  
  Obama held a golden ticket and all he and his advisers can do is make excuses.
  
  Report this comment
WAKEUPUSA2012
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:38pm
Krugman is a worm. With his intellectually superior, east coast elitist attitude. Him and all the other keynesian economic pushers need a big dose of reality.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Polarized America
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:35pm
I’m shocked, we live in a country that counts every tooth pick in a box, we don’t get 99..or 101..we get exactly 100..and we can’t agree on how many gov’t workers we have .. Polarized i say

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
seospider
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:31pm
Your statement “Because the only workforce the president can expand, the only part of government he can grow, is the federal workforce. And it has grown.” is complete balderdash.

Thirty one percent, two hundred and forty four billion dollars, of the stimulus went to support state budgets. This money was used to support state governments that can not borrow money, unlike the federal government that can borrow. This money was used by state and local governments to avoid massive layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police officers and prison guards.

Despite the stimulus support of state budgets, states have still had to slash government payrolls which has lead to an unemployment rate that is one percent higher than if government employment had simply stayed stagnant.

The federal/state distinction is an after the fact justification so Rand Paul can save face.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DarkJello
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:42pm
  LMBO.
  
  So the government workforce is smaller, and yet spending has accelerated?
  
  Bottom line: our massive centralized gooberment wastes too much money.
  
  Report this comment
- mtcountrygrl
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:53pm
  Funny when I watched it, I thought federal workers too. No spin there. Now the benefit of the doubt could be given to Krugman that they simply were not talking about the same things.
  
  And by the way if state employees didn’t have ridiculous union contracts that kicked the can down the road instead of using 401K style benefits, they would not be going bankrupt. Bailing out states and auto companies so that they do not have to address their spending and most importantly their union contracts, just kicks the can down the road once more.
  
  Report this comment
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:23pm
  seospider, I know this is a forum and do not expect to see academic debate of any value, but your statement has what to do with City, County, State and Federal employment? Exactly how did the federal government shrink state and local government? What in your estimation was the purpose of federal stimulus funds? What was the impact on state and local governments regarding federal stimulus? Your comment like many others is without value with the exception of possible stress relief in the form of a rant.
  
  Report this comment
- come_get_them
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 11:33am
  Rand is right there are more people working for the federal government under Obama then Bush. And I think a lot of them are working for the IRS to police our health care. And as far as Obama giving money to states, Obama could give each state 800 billion and it’s still up to the state on how it’s spent. Unless Obama attaches stings like you can only spend this on union government employees. The president has control of the federal work force and that’s the only work force he can expand. And the reason that the states had to cut back is because unlike the federal government most states have a balance budget amendment. I think you also need a reminder that Obama was fighting against people like walker trying to cut state government spending. So Krugman argument that Obama is a government cutter is BS because if Obama had his way those people would still be working for the state governments even know the states couldn’t afford it.
  
  Report this comment
502_eagle
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:27pm
Krugman is all spin. Get a degree behind you and you can just claim anything to be true. And he gets nasty with anyone who disagrees with his so called genuis. A good example of a liberal to hold up. Spin artist and hatefull.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
wheeler44
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:27pm
Muddy the water, blur the issue, tried and true tactic for duping the willing electorate. Why change now.
And he claims to be an intellectual. Just a hack without ethics.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
GodFearingMama
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:25pm
We’re never going to come together. This country is so polarized and it’s fact vs emotion. We gotta get control and make no apologizes policies. Cut with a hatchet not a scalpel. No more reaching across the isle and trying to pander for votes from the other side. Their side is a sinking ship and they’ll take us with them.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
MODEL82A1
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:20pm
If anyone needed definitive proof that Paulbotism is either a Cult or a mental disorder, this thread will give it to you conclusively. Rand has taken more centrist positions than his Father his whole political career (Something Paulbots will metaphorically crucify ANY other Republican for doing). Although, since Paulbots are, above all else, Jew Haters, this makes sense, since only Jews condemn the Son of God. It doesn’t make the Paulbots any less ignorant, pathetic and hilarious, though.
Log in to ReplyReply
- DarkJello
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:33pm
  Umm, thanks and stuff.
  
  Rand Paul is his own man, fyi. Any comments on topic sir?
  
  Report this comment
- WAKEUPUSA2012
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:46pm
  Wow, MODEL82A1
  
  I thought you were a supporter in the post you left below. After reading this, I can see you have issues. Good day to you.
  
  Report this comment
- WAKEUPUSA2012
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:49pm
  And who is “the son of God” in your book? Mitt Rommney? Cause thats about the only person or politican that we paulbots have lambasted.
  
  Report this comment
- MODEL82A1
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:00pm
  GOBACKTOSLEEP, I have an issue with ALL ignorant people. Especially the Stupid. I take great pleasure in mocking, humiliating and exposing them any chance I get. I take special pleasure in taunting small groups of ignorant people who sycophantically follow, if not worship, one, wildly unpopular, radical Leftist Loser as their “savior” of our Republic in the name of “Conservatism”.
  
  Report this comment
- Mutiny
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:13pm
  Please point out votes or positions Rand has had that makes him a centrist. His “centrist” position is still pretty much on the opposite side of the spectrum from Obama and Romney.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:30pm
  Good God Model, you are still obsessed. You guys talk about him more than we do
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:53pm
  “SOY, I am here for one reason: To amuse myself. It just so happens that you and your sycophantic, mindless ilk offer the slowest hanging fruit for me to achieve my goal.”
  
  I believe what you suffer from is called the ‘disinhibition effect’
  The “disinhibition effect”…..In which the frequency of self-interested, unethical behavior increases among anonymous people
  
  Report this comment
BODYBAG
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:16pm
“…we’ll just ignore his wholly unnecessary and adolescent victory lap”

This one comment hit the nail on the head.

“professor” Paul Krugman is a pre-pubescent liberal manchild [just like his mancrush leader].
A tyrannical little monkey, completely enthralled with himself, and his own ego. He’s spent his
entire life insulated within the cocoon of academia. He fabricates & distorts facts and figures
to support his absurd positions and then goes into a tirade when anyone dares challenge his
“intellect”.

Immediately retaliating on “his blog” to attempt to get the last word is just one more
indicator of how childish, immature, and emotionally stunted this idiot really is.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- pissantno.10
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:32pm
  i like how you think
  
  Report this comment
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:34pm
  An example of how international economists regard him is when his speech was sharply rebutted and critiqued by Austrian economics professor Pedro Schwartz:
  
  From http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ultimate-krugman-take-down
  
  “”Keynesians got us into this mess and now we have to sacrifice our principals so that they can get us out of this mess”. Humble and generous in his praise – though definitively serious with his criticism – Schwartz opines: “Often Nobel prize winners are tempted to pontificate on matters that are outside the specialty in which they have excelled,” noting “the mantle of authority whereby what ever they say – whether sensible or not – is accepted with resignation from some and enthusiasm by others.” Krugman’s red-faced anger is evident at the conclusion as he even refused to shake Schwartz’s hand after the debate.”
  
  Report this comment
DeVain
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:12pm
One of the few vote I chomped at the bit to cast and have been proud to do so ever since….is when I voted for Rand Paul to the 2nd district of KY.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- haystakfan
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:27am
  well said…I felt the exact same way casting my vote for Rand Paul also
  
  Report this comment
Stoic one
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:03pm
So Krugman has a ***** in his arms….is that a summation of what he is?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
whatthecrazy
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:57pm
I dont want to read all that………boorriing

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:56pm
Krugman is a lying worm. He takes advantage of the fact that 99% of people don’t know anything about economics and/or statistics to weave elaborate tapestries of lies. He is not unlike Prof. Mann of hockey stick fame. I could cite at least 5 examples where Krugman has flat out lied on his statistics and nobody says anything. Freaking crazy. Goebles would have loved this dude. HA! Yes I know he’s Jewish.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MODEL82A1
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:03pm
  How about Rand Paul, Dungeon Master? He’s nothing but a RINO, progressive, traitor who works for the Zionists, by your definition. No condemnation of him? Worried that Ron will strike you dead for blasphemy?
- DarkJello
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:05pm
  His tactics are shameful, some people act like he is great, and then the truth surfaces.
  
  Why is this guy not a politician instead of a pretend economist??
  
  Report this comment
- WAKEUPUSA2012
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:43pm
  MODEL82A1
  
  I understand why you are angry. He endorsed Rommney, I know. I was sad as well. While I am not quick to have a politicans back, Rand has shown that he is about small government and SOUND defense spending as well as domestic. He wants a future in this party, so he played ball. Us PAULBOTS have changed the republican platform in more than one way this year. And the establishment knows WE ARE THE FUTURE. A foreign policy that makes since, DEFENSE is the NUMBER ONE JOB of the federal government, but it most be done so by the constutition and what is reasonable in spending. Take it easy with all the name calling, it does us no good in getting our messege out. Peace.
  
  Report this comment
Al J Zira
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:55pm
Why would anyone debate Crud-man? He makes up stats to enforce his lies. He’ll lie after the debate and tell everyone he won. How do you think this idiot became a professor? He lied!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
team1blazer
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:54pm
Krugman is a political hack. He is a tool of the far left and a firm supporter of Keynesian economics (which has proved to be a farse and a failure every time it has been tried). Argue with the idiot all you want, but he’ll always be an idiot.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Neils60
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:51pm
Rand Paul’s not my favorite politician by any means. However, he’s correct on the issue of federal employees, and not including state and local government workers, when speaking of federal public sector employment. And, he was correct to endorse Mitt Romney for the presidency, rather than his own father.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MODEL82A1
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:57pm
  If you have a “favorite politician”, then there’s something wrong with you. My first guess is Paulbotism.
irishheart
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:49pm
Proud to be a Kentuckian! Rand Paul is the breath of fresh air so needed in DC.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:00pm
  KY did a great thing in putting him through. In VA, we are getting Mr. Unrefreshing – George Allen
  
  Report this comment
Detroit paperboy
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:48pm
Krugman couldn’t run a donut shop successfully ………PERIOD.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DIR
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 2:07am
  Yea, well Krugman has been selling donut holes (the thin air kind) to the left successfully for years. He’s even perfected flavoring them with crap laced methane. The left just loves them ….. in fact the left tries to pawn them off to the public at large, with little or no success whereas conservatives are concerned.
  
  Report this comment
MODEL82A1
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:47pm
Hey Paulbots, Rand Paul is a RINO, progressive traitor according to your “logic”. Will you condemn the son of “god”?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:02pm
  Rand Paul has not gone to the dark side like some other republicans have. Rand Paul is not perfect but he is a hell of a lot better than Romney.
  
  I could compromise and vote for Rand Paul but i dont think jerks like you would allow him through the primary
  
  Report this comment
- DeVain
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:10pm
  He is not a RINO you freakin’ moron.
  
  Report this comment
- MODEL82A1
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:23pm
  DEVAINMUSCLECAR, But Paul Ryan is a RINO? If you’re a Paulbot, then your answer is “yes”. You freakin’ Moron.
  
  Report this comment
- therealconservative
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:23pm
  @soy
  
  It’s jerks like you that say Ran Paul went to the dark side.
  
  Report this comment
- MODEL82A1
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:28pm
  Apparently, this one post has made me, quite unintentionally, King of the Illiterates. I hereby officially abdicate the throne.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:31pm
  As a prolific pundit regarding anything Ron Paul… I must admit I DO like Rand for a number of reasons.
  
  That being said… Rand Paul has grown up in the cesspool of a certain stripe of Libertarianism and that warrants some skepticism and a closer look. He’s made a few comments which showed he’s got some of the old man in him and hasn’t fallen far from the tree (and I’m not referencing the economy, the fed or sound money either).
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:37pm
  “Rand Paul has NOT gone to the dark side like some other republicans”
  
  Does anyone else laugh at therealconservative?
  
  ———
  From another article…..
  
  soybomb315_II
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:50pm
  “wow. Thereal is not even reading posts anymore”
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:38pm
  @time2
  Do tell. Or is this your version of a whisper campaign?
  
  Report this comment
- therealconservative
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:42pm
  @time
  
  Agree. But what I love is the the Paul followers have tossed Rand aside, since endorsed Romney.
  
  Report this comment
- WAKEUPUSA2012
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:54pm
  So sad to see you guys try so hard to get a reaction out of us. We are all supposeadly on the small government side, yet so many people on both sides just go back and forth. Its why nothing ever gets done. All this infighting is childish.
  
  Report this comment
- WAKEUPUSA2012
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 9:59pm
  therealconservative
  
  Soy literally said Rand has not gone to the dark side, yet in your twisted logic, you attempt to be confrotational but really just FAIL. Just like a DHS goon would.
  
  Report this comment
- WAKEUPUSA2012
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:00pm
  therealconservative
  
  Soy literally said Rand has not gone to the dark side, yet in your twisted logic, you attempt to be confrotational but really just FAIL. Just like a DHS goon would
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:00pm
  REALCONSERVATIVE. Yes, I understand and agree with you. The articles and comments I’ve read here, there and everywhere regarding Rand Paul’s Romney endorsement are typical of the acolytes/zealots of the Father.
  
  Glenn Beck was once their darling until he too got mostly tossed under the bus by their nonsensical duty to Daddy Paul and his idiotic and America hating commentary and musings.
  
  Report this comment
- therealconservative
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:01pm
  @soy
  
  “Rand Paul has NOT gone to the dark side like some other republicans”
  
  Does anyone else laugh at therealconservative?
  
  Where?
  
  Report this comment
- therealconservative
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:02pm
  @wake
  
  Show me.
  
  Report this comment
- cykonas
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:16pm
  @SOY: Does anyone else laugh at therealconservative?
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  I don’t laugh at them I pray for them. I pray that they will get it one day. But I’m afraid they will continue to support unelectable imbeciles like McCain and Romney and then blame everything and everyone else when their candidate doesn’t win. It’s sad to see presumed adults who are so easily pushed over the cliff. Peace.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:19pm
  hahahaha
  
  he STILL doesnt see it!!
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 10:28pm
  @cykonas
  Yea i hear you. I am more worried about everyone that reads that and doesnt realize the foolishness of his argument (he isnt even reading the posts). It is common sense and decency but it is just further evidence of the moral decline of this country i suppose
  
  Report this comment
- RepubliCorp
  Posted on September 11, 2012 at 8:48am
  Maybe he should publish a newsletter just like his Daddy ?
  
  Report this comment
jhaydeng
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:39pm
Rand would crush him in a debate! Truth trumps lies! Kinda like rock,scissor,paper!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:38pm
Paul Krugman is still made because he was fired from his villiage idiot position, they said he was toooo stupid.

Sen Paul should not argue with fools, soon, nobody will recognize who the fool is.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- U.N.hater
  Posted on September 10, 2012 at 8:55pm
  When you endorse a fool instead of your own father you are a fool. He chose a progressive republican over his constitutional father and Romney’s progressiveness is start’ing to show know aint it?
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.