Rand Paul rocks the house at CPAC.

thisguyrighthere
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.

I understand all that and you should understand that minor league teams don't play in the world series either.

Let me reiterate......it's not about ideology.....It's about money!!

reply to post by Aleister


He doesn't opposes gay marriage. He believes it's states rights even if he doesn't believe in it. He believes in the rule of law, it the states vote for it then so be it. He will not reverse it. There's a difference.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I'm pretty sure I didn't say you were attacking me from a side.

I thought I was fundamentally agreeing with you then adding to it. However, my point stands that the only people attacking anyone are those on "sides" and who have only those sides interests at heart and not what's good for everyone even if that means compromise or concession from time to time.

And my major point? I'm sick of people in this country attacking each other just because they disagree which is basically a normal thing that adults work out, as stated above.

~Lucidity
And my major point? I'm sick of people in this country attacking each other just because they disagree which is basically a normal thing that adults work out, as stated above.

Yup, I totally didnt understand your post. My fault.

Disagreements are fine and I can live with disagreeing. Disagreements become a problem when they become laws and regulations that interfere with me living my life.

I only get one go around here and it makes me sad and a little sick to think the parameters in which I am to live my one and only life are dictated to me by other people who somehow decides they know what's best for me.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Rand is such a tool and a poor politically-pandering compromised substitute for Ron Paul.

How can this guy talk about liberty when he opposes rights based on conservative social values and turns his back on his father?

He's like a plant by the old world order GOP folks to dissuade people from paying attention to libertarians. This guy is harmful and his words only poison chances for the RNC to truly change because it gives them an "out" making them think they are changing. He's the GOP Obama; all style, no substance.

America has been governed by way of deception, for too long.

Rand Paul represents truth.

" Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." --Buddha

NO NO NO......YOU don't get NO FREEDOM because you don't have the stomach to FIGHT>>>even DIE for it.....
You've been having it so good for so long that theres no lovers of liberty left in any real sense......too bad you get the shaft but 1984 is all theres left now.......

Its funny....all the Rand Paul rhetoric that I hear sounds an awful lot like the Obama rheotirc that i heard prior to his presidency.

Maybe, just maybe, someday some people will realize that the solution will not come out of another career politician (aka liar)

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I'm not sure how you can call him a career politician when he was a practicing ophthalmologist and small business owner prior to this term in the senate. He had also moved to Kentucky away from his dad; he was not riding on his dad's coat tails in Texas.

If all this makes someone a career politician, then no none who has ever had any politician in their family tree had better run for office. I guess this also disqualifies Milton Wolf in Kansas because he is also a doctor, small business owner and Barack Obama's cousin.

reply to post by ketsuko

I'm not sure how you can call him a career politician when he was a practicing ophthalmologist and small business owner prior to this term in the senate. He had also moved to Kentucky away from his dad; he was not riding on his dad's coat tails in Texas.

Because his career is in politics, and he has shown that he is more than willing to sell out for the party line. THAT is why I call him a career politician.

If all this makes someone a career politician, then no none who has ever had any politician in their family tree had better run for office. I guess this also disqualifies Milton Wolf in Kansas because he is also a doctor, small business owner and Barack Obama's cousin.

Thatd be a start.

Rand Raul would be a disaster for this country, if he institutes the libertarian principles. if he doesn't he's just another republican. people need to read the "principles of libertarianism" ... yes all of them... and carefully analyze the solutions to real life's problems by libertarian governance. after several "what-if scenarios", you'll come to realize that most of us would be screwed over.

Sorry but this is exactly what Obama did in 04. No one really trusted the Democrats but in the murk of the Bush administration, the kinds of things Obama was saying at that convention sure sounded good.

I know some people really trust and respect Rand and Ron Paul but I have always been a bit leery of Ron Paul and Rand by default.

It's not as if we really have better choices but I would say to keep your eyes and ears open. Anytime someone seems to be the obvious escape route, you have to be suspicious.

reply to post by BrianFlanders


Lets' put it this way - if my choices are Rand Paul and Chris Christie, or Rand Paul and Jeb Bush ... which way do you think I'm headed? I can take the party anointed candidate or the one they party doesn't want who is basically an outsider ... let me think about this ... nope, not the true party insiders.

Do you really think the party is spending time and money attacking Paul and Cruz in an effort to make us vote for them?

ketsuko

Do you really think the party is spending time and money attacking Paul and Cruz in an effort to make us vote for them?

I guess that depends on your definition of "the party". And yes, anything is possible. I don't put anything past politicians.

ketsuko


Do you really think the party is spending time and money attacking Paul and Cruz in an effort to make us vote for them?

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

The GOP is establishment old school and they full well know that when push comes to shove the conservative voters will side with the Republicans because they know a vote for Libertarians or another third party is a wasted vote.

There are some great Republicans out there but they won't even be considered. However I do see a dark horse making a bid but it won't be Ron Paul. He burned his bridges with to many racist comments. My money is on an Hispanic to try and win back minority voters; To transparent and it won't work.

Or perhaps Jeb, he speaks Spanish well and has the family pedigree, connections and more important money.

I could live with another Bush as POTUS. My businesses prospered with W. I'm a single issue voter.....Me!

reply to post by gladtobehere


Finally he's starting to sound like Daddy! I really didn't like him at first, but he's starting to say some encouraging things.

We must remember though, that 99% of politicians have forked tongues behind their friendly smiles...

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"?

I'll tell you what's scary about it:

1. People use the word liberty simply for grandstanding, and usually to idiots.

2. They use liberty to mean lots of guns, destroying the planet, and letting big business rape all of us.

3. And yes, most people who use the word liberty don't want minorities, progressives, atheists, envrionmentalists, war protestors or anyone else around who isn't a traditional, white, conservative, hateful asshat (and i'm white so don't say I'm racist).

2016 election will be Bush vs. Clinton.
Americans will be left the choice of voting for the lesser of two evils, again
and make the wrong choice, Again !

Meet the new Boss , same as the old Boss.

WE WILL BE FOOLED , AGAIN !

OLD HIPPY DUDE
2016 election will be Bush vs. Clinton.
Americans will be left the choice of voting for the lesser of two evils, again
and make the wrong choice, Again !

Meet the new Boss , same as the old Boss.

WE WILL BE FOOLED , AGAIN !

Yeah but if that's the only choice, what is the wrong choice? Clinton? Bush? It would be great not to have another Bush in the white house. I'd almost vote for Clinton, just to stop that. In the end, if Clinton one, decades from now, the only thing remembered would be that it opened the door for future female leaders. That would be a good thing. If it was Bush...well the comparisons to the Kennedy clan would be too much to bear for the next century. Wouldn't it?

OLD HIPPY DUDE
2016 election will be Bush vs. Clinton.
Americans will be left the choice of voting for the lesser of two evils, again
and make the wrong choice, Again !

Meet the new Boss , same as the old Boss.

WE WILL BE FOOLED , AGAIN !

Was there ever a right choice?