It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rand Paul rocks the house at CPAC.

page: 1
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Rand Paul urges conservatives to fight with him for liberty.


Sen. Rand Paul urged the thousands that turned out for the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to imagine electing a “friend of liberty” to the White House who will defend the Constitution and push back against a federal government that is trampling over their individual rights.

“You may think I am talking about electing a Republican. I am not,” Mr. Paul said. “I am talking about electing lovers of liberty. It isn’t good enough to pick the lesser of two evils. We must elect men and women of principle, and conviction and action that will lead us back to greatness.”

Thats music to my ears.

I've had it with the Police State Industrial Complex, foreign welfare state and empire. We need to solve our problems first. Setting up a police state to deal with civil unrest is not a solution (try telling that to .gov).

Bush created the framework with the unPatriot Act, warrant-less spying, the Telecom Amnesty Bill, the creation of the DHS, TSA, indefinite detentions, citizen watch lists, citizen assassinations etc.

And Obama, despite his rhetoric, followed the Bush model like a typical minion.



Ted Cruz said some good things as well but unfortunately, hes turning out to be a neocon on foreign policy.

Apparently, the room at CPAC was on fire when Rand was up there.

Gives me some hope for the future.




edit on 8-3-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I have my fingers crossed that as more of these old guard type Dems and Reps die off libertarianism will continue to rise even quicker than it already is.


Like it or not, more and more young Americans are thinking just like Danny and Matt. A recent Harvard Institute of Politics poll found that many young voters are embracing libertarian ideals, perhaps without even realizing it.

Vice


When the government suddenly surges in size, scope, or power, America's deeply rooted libertarian attitudes come back to the fore.
The Atlantic

As much as the two heads of idiocy, Fox and MSNBC, would like to believe that this is some fad or that the fake and co-opted "Tea Party" is the end all be all of any opposition the trend for the next 10, 20, 30 years looks to be in favor of libertarians.

It's telling that both parties are trying to grab the Hispanic vote. The R's want it because of culturally popular religious beliefs and the D's want it because of popular support for big government. They both need the Hispanic vote to maintain their false dichotomy authoritarianism. A largely religious people who enjoy big government. I cant imagine a worse direction for government to move in.

A potential outcome is a merging of the D's and R's into this big government theocracy and an offshoot of the small gov libertarians making up the new opposition.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   
unfortunately I don't believe it would would make a bit of difference. As president anyone would be given two choices torture/death or compliance. It seems like every president turns into the same creepy dictator. Almost body snatcher style. I think there is some hardcore brainwashing either way.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Now if he could get Allen West on his ticket we will win.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:06 AM
link   
We need to be much less interventionist but not completely isolationist. Our allies need to be able to depend on us. I would be in favor of a total re-negotiation of NATO to where every nation that participates must send either equal military force or monetary support into any joint venture. That way, we'd be spared all the heavy lifting with Great Britain. As it stands, when NATO acts, it's really mostly us with Great Britain. Nations like Turkey can get away with sending ... four helicopters ... with heavy strings attached. No more of that. If Turkey only sends four helicopters, then no one else should send anything more.

There are a lot of places who have built their social welfare states at our expense because our military has covered their butts. It's time they rediscover their military budgets so we can rebalance ours.
edit on 8-3-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


How can people speak of Rand Paul as wanting liberty when he opposes gay marriage? He also opposes legalization of other things which people regard as components of liberty. What gives, is this a 1984 use of language (Liberty equals oppression)?
edit on 8-3-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


No, they want the Hispanic vote because they realize that a lot of Hispanics are largely unassimilated, uneducated and come from cultures where Big Authoritarian Government is the norm, so that will be what they vote for. They aren't steeped in a tradition of liberty. Why do you think multi-culti is so big? If we assimilated them, they'd start to realize that things in this country are like they are because of liberty and personal responsibility, not because we so many rich people the government taxes to give people crap.

If they can amnesty the Hispanics and give them the vote, they put a lock on their power. Both sides.

Libertarian dies a still birth.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


How can people speak of Rand Paul as wanting liberty when he opposes gay marriage? He also opposes legalization of other things which people regard as components of liberty. What gives, is this a 1984 use of language (Liberty equals oppression)?
edit on 8-3-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)


It's easy. You can be opposed to the redefinition of marriage without being opposed to giving gays legal domestic partnership rights. Although I think Paul has spoken before about backing the government out of marriage and into civil union and leaving marriage to religions.

However, I love that you speak of "freedom" only in regards to gay marriage without mentioning freedom in regards to the religions for whom such a thing is anathema. If you give one side exclusive legal rights, you necessarily must oppress the other.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


How can people speak of Rand Paul as wanting liberty when he opposes gay marriage?


Unfortunately he isnt perfect but he's better for the cause than virtually any other politician in the running.

They all have some sort of ridiculous hang up that serves as a patronizing attempt to get the votes of more people.

As they die and their numbers shrink hopefully these "appeal to more idiots" positions fade away.

Obama turned into a war-monger pretty quick when it was to get the "national security" vote and Bush Jr. came in on promises to shrink government and limit foreign intervention but we all know how that turned out when the mouth-breathers started shouting "USA! USA! USA!"

Politicians lie and cheat but at this point it's vote for the most libertarian candidate there is or not bother voting at all.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I have a fundamental issue with the term fight for liberty, particularly when it is used as a jingoistic, manipulative device in a divisive nature, with or without attempts at negation, and directed toward millions, most of whom will interpret it differently...sometimes in good ways and sometimes not.

And my fundamental issue is, who or what are you fighting? And how and why?

To fight for something, one must fight against something else, something very specific and very concrete and that, in an ideal or even semi-ideal world, everyone can agree on without it being manipulated into it by words or concepts so vague as to be left to the interpretation and discretion of the individuals.

I worry about this a lot. It seems to be the path our world is on and it's not a good one.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


As opposed to "hope and change"?

How many were fighting for "hope" and "change" which were also appeals made to a broad section of people all of whom interpreted them in wildly different ways.

In this case, you're fighting against being told by the government what is or is not good for you in your life and its aspects.
edit on 8-3-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I want be left alone as long as I am causing no harm to anyone or anyone's property.

The fight is against anyone or any group who seeks to not leave me alone when I'm not causing harm to anyone or anyone's property.

I don't what's so scary about that. You're afraid to just let people be and mind your own business?



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Gee...why would you make the rather huge assumption that I or anyone else fell for that jingoistic, manipulative BS anymore than I do for this? Why was this your immediate go-to canned retort? That's a rhetorical question. I think just proved the point I made in my first post better than I ever could have.

ETA: Oh, I see you've edited your statement...wish I had quoted it because now mine seems like it doesn't make as much sense. Still close enough though.


edit on 3/8/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Aleister
reply to post by gladtobehere
 

How can people speak of Rand Paul as wanting liberty when he opposes gay marriage? He also opposes legalization of other things which people regard as components of liberty. What gives, is this a 1984 use of language (Liberty equals oppression)?
edit on 8-3-2014 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

I dont know where Rand stands on gay marriage.

But there are always going to be single issue voters out there. Maybe gay marriage is your personal cause and thats fine.

But gay marriage has become a states' issue. If thats something you agree with or like, looks like the fight will be on more of a local level.

Dont know what else he "opposes legalization of other things which people regard as components of liberty"...

So far he filibustered against drone strikes, opposed the NDAA, opposed SOPA/PIPA, is suing the NSA (did I forget anything)?


I dont know that we're ever going to find the "perfect" candidate in any one person.

As an overall candidate, Rand Paul is way ahead.



edit on 8-3-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Rand Paul is a Republican not a Libertarian. He will not get the Libertarian nomination nor the Republican nomination.

Perhaps he may bail on the GOP and run as a T party candidate but that will be a losing ticket as well. I just don't logically see how the conservative movement can compete with the corporate Oligarchy aka Military/Industrial complex. Politics isn't about ideology, it's about money!


edit on 8-3-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   

thisguyrighthere
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


I want be left alone as long as I am causing no harm to anyone or anyone's property.

The fight is against anyone or any group who seeks to not leave me alone when I'm not causing harm to anyone or anyone's property.

I don't what's so scary about that. You're afraid to just let people be and mind your own business?


Erm. No. I just want to be left alone too. And you know what? No one's bothering me but the people who attack me for that and my views because BS like this riles them up. And guess what dude? they come from both sides of the mythical aisle (just like you did) because they can't really figure me out.

*Goes for a walk with my gun and stops to hug a few trees while defending a cop being attacked by Putin.


edit on 3/8/2014 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


So then what about "liberty" as it's used frightens you?

Do you think there is a huge swath of people out there who hear that and think "liberty means no more negroes" or "liberty means sending all the gays to an island"?

What side of an aisle did I attack (did I?) you from?

Maybe I'm just not understanding your posts?



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Wow.... So we should fight with Senator Paul to advance liberty (and his career beyond anything his record can possibly support in good conscience). Well, why not? What could ever go wrong? After all... We elected an amateur for the last 2 Presidents in a row. It didn't go so badly...now did it?

Errr.. Yeah... Sounds kinda silly to me too.


His Father was a man I spent my own personal time supporting here locally. His son has come to be someone I wouldn't cross the street to save if I were the only one available to help.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 

Well, Rand isnt an isolationist.

Hes for trading with other nations, dialoguing, using diplomacy, being friends and keeping open the channels of communication.

But he does think that we have a Military Industrial Complex which sees endless warfare as a constant source of profit.

So when theres a politician who is against the Military Industrial Complex or the war-fare state, they call him an "isolationist", implying that hes against any kind of foreign relations.

I urge people to be careful of this deception.

And lets be honest, theres only one nation attacking, invading and occupying other nations. Take a guess as to who it is!



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


There are libertarian R's and there are libertarian D's and there are libertarian L's and there are even L's who are not libertarian.

The world is a little more diverse than Republican ™, Democrat ™ or Libertarian ™ and neither party is all one thing or another (though the D's and R's lean more authoritarian than the L's who are still somewhat authoritarian) and there is a lot of philosophical cross-over.

Don't confuse libertarian with Libertarian ™. Not the same things.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join