Rand Paul rocks the house at CPAC.

CB328

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).

And you have proof of any of this beyond your own fears?

CB328

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).

Yes. SOME people do all of those things.

But guess what?

Others use the word "liberty":

1. To describe simply sitting in your living room talking to your mother on the phone without the government recording your conversation and storing it in their archives.

2. To describe being allowed to choose not to allow insurance companies and the government to extort you in a protection racket.

3. To describe the right to be left alone when you're not doing a damn thing to hurt anyone

4. To describe the right to privacy in general. Yes. Business does abuse the general concept of liberty and kind of turn it around backwards on us on the privacy front. HOWEVER, big government is NOT going to protect our privacy from big business. If big business is bad, big government is big business with a big stick. And as you can see, when you empower the government, you're merely creating a control panel for anyone who wants to abuse it.

I could go on but maybe you get the point? There is a good reason to at least try to balance out big government with people who at least claim to be interested in our rights. And I'm not just talking about gay men getting married. Maybe I can have the right to cross the street without insurance before we start talking about gay marriage?

Progressives, huh? Just what exactly are they doing "progressively"? This is progress? A tax on breathing? I can't even breathe now without a "shared responsibility tax"? That sounds like we're progressing to something alright. You'll have to forgive me for admitting it sounds creepy as hell to me.

jimmyx
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.

Well, that's truly ironic because Progressive Liberal policies have been screwing us over for years....at least those of us who value working hard, raising our families and being moral and productive citizens of the greatest nation to ever exist.

Nobody is saying that Libertarianism is perfect or that Paul or anyone else would enact it to a T. What we need is a reversal of direction on all things authoritarian. Note, the real issue isn't the fight between Liberal and Conservative....it's between that of individual liberty and collective authoritarianism. The Left and the Right can coexist on the individual freedom end of the political spectrum but neither will exist should we fully descend into the totalitarian/authoritarian axis. Rand Paul is not perfect but right now he's one of the few candidates that sees this as a threat to our way of life and who wants to rid us of the parasitic infestation that is rapidly killing the spirit of this country.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Rand Paul is a piece of crap! Nice evidence of passing the ball in your pic...cause that's sure to happen again and again and again and again etc....get my point?

They're all (politicians everywhere around the world) full of crap and they "all" smell like crap too 👎😜👎



Disclaimer (it seems we need these even on ATS now a days):

This post is my Personal Opinion Only...any and all gripes should immediately be forwarded to 👉THE MOD SQUAD.

Thank You for your understanding 😊



ETA
I forgot to give you a star for sharing your opinion (sorry no flag because it's just not that important IMHO). In return for my star, can you ponder the idea that none of them (politicians) really care 😉?

BrianFlanders

CB328

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).

Yes. SOME people do all of those things.

But guess what?

Others use the word "liberty":

1. To describe simply sitting in your living room talking to your mother on the phone without the government recording your conversation and storing it in their archives.

2. To describe being allowed to choose not to allow insurance companies and the government to extort you in a protection racket.

3. To describe the right to be left alone when you're not doing a damn thing to hurt anyone

4. To describe the right to privacy in general. Yes. Business does abuse the general concept of liberty and kind of turn it around backwards on us on the privacy front. HOWEVER, big government is NOT going to protect our privacy from big business. If big business is bad, big government is big business with a big stick. And as you can see, when you empower the government, you're merely creating a control panel for anyone who wants to abuse it.

I could go on but maybe you get the point? There is a good reason to at least try to balance out big government with people who at least claim to be interested in our rights. And I'm not just talking about gay men getting married. Maybe I can have the right to cross the street without insurance before we start talking about gay marriage?

Progressives, huh? Just what exactly are they doing "progressively"? This is progress? A tax on breathing? I can't even breathe now without a "shared responsibility tax"? That sounds like we're progressing to something alright. You'll have to forgive me for admitting it sounds creepy as hell to me.

edit on 9-3-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

Fantastic post.

Perfectly stated.

reply to post by Aleister


He doesn't believe in gay marriage in his personal view, but he will not do anything to implement his views on others, so there is no liberty oppression in his personal view. Most likely if he becomes president he would just allow the states to define marriage on their own terms. The majority will decide the results.

reply to post by gladtobehere


So, Rand got his supporters excited, eh? Big freakin' deal. Those 'emotional' folks are very easily excited. Too bad ol' Rand will have to get the rest of the country excited too, if he wants to win any kind of national election. Good luck with that.

seasoul
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

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

If Rand Paul represents truth then why did he back Mitt Romney? Anyone that would stab his own father in the back to further his own career is a person that is not to be trusted. Not to mention that little discussion he had with McConnell showed his true colors.

Its funny to see democrats and old guard republicans getting all worked up over outside political views.

Sorry to say- but both the progressives and the republican party have been taking this country down the sewer pipe for decades.

It wasnt the libertarians who screwed us over, it isnt their policies that got us into war. It wasnt their policies that added all of that debt.

Yet when the people finally get a chance to elect someone who would actually TRY to fix our countries problem, they get snubbed out.

I was and still am a big Ron Paul supporter, and the way the republican party treated him was disgusting to me.
You dont think for a second that Ron Paul didnt speak to his son about how to survive in politics?
I hated what Rand Paul did when his father was running, and I was upset about it for a while until one day when I thought
'Maybe Ron Paul sat down with his son and told him to do it?'... The only two people who really know why he did that, was him and his dad. Anything else is just speculation until proven otherwise. So I really cant fault him for doing what he did, hell; look at where hes at now? Strategy. Im sure his dad would love to see him get elected president. Maybe Ron knew he was being sabatoged, and that he wasnt going to win. Things sure are looking differently for Rand though, he has all the attention that Ron never got.

Id back Rand over the lot of fools currently making their bids. He would be better than what we have had in the past couple decades, by far.

Common Good
Its funny to see democrats and old guard republicans getting all worked up over outside political views.

Sorry to say- but both the progressives and the republican party have been taking this country down the sewer pipe for decades.

I'm definitely not a republican. I'm closer to libertarian than anything else. I'm just leery of anything and everything these days. Rand and Ron Paul might be as legitimate as they come but I've seen enough of how things appear to work in this country to cause me to be VERY jaded and highly distrusting. It seems that TPTB own basically everything and the way I see it, I don't think you would have ever heard of Rand or Ron Paul if they weren't owned by the same people who own everything else.

What I am saying here ISN'T that either the Reps or the Dems are better. Rather, I think the problem is much bigger than a lot of people want to believe. It isn't that I don't want to support Libertarians. It's that I don't believe they're real Libertarians. I think it's just another way to make us believe we aren't totally screwed. I'm not saying there's a damn thing we can do about it or that you shouldn't try to support Rand Paul if you think it'll do any good. But I think it might be time for us to admit we don't have any power and the vote is a complete joke.

You can't elect a Libertarian if the "Libertarian" they give you to vote for isn't a real one. And you have to realize that in this country, frankly, the Democrats are far worse than the Republicans. Why? Because even if they're technically all the same, the people who vote for them don't know that so if they want to keep the illusion, Republicans can't act like Democrats and vice versa. Not easily anyway. As we see, Obama actually does kind of act like a Republican but in a sneaky, roundabout way. The individual mandate was actually a Republican idea. It's nothing like what the liberal base actually wants but they've allowed him to convince them that it'll eventually get them "The public option" as it's called.

He's the least objectionable Republican who will probably be running.
He can't do worse than Obama and Bush43.
I say ... give the Libertarians a chance.

(Yes, yes, I know .. he has an (R) after his name and he isn't fully Libertarian, but he leans that
way and perhaps this will open the doors for third and forth parties in the future).

FlyersFan
He's the least objectionable Republican who will probably be running.
He can't do worse than Obama and Bush43.
I say ... give the Libertarians a chance.

I worked on Gary Johnson's Libertarian campaign during the last presidential election. Didn't get much interest did it?
Rand Paul is no Libertarian! He is just another republican trying to siphon off some of the fringe attention, but with his
anti minority stance; I doubt if he can get much traction nationally. I hope Gov. Gary gives it another shot!!!

Libertarians don't hold the same racist beliefs that Rand Paul does.

Wrabbit2000

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.

Glad I'm not alone on this. Why is that anyway??? Exactly how did that apple fall so far from the tree??? I haven't followed Rand as close as I did Ron so I'm not fully aware of all of his policies and opinions, but partly why that is, is because I've heard Rand say some things over the past couple years that I just can't believe would come out his mouth. I wonder sometimes what his dad must think of some of his ideas....

FlyersFan
He's the least objectionable Republican who will probably be running.
He can't do worse than Obama and Bush43.

That's what I thought about Obama (That there was no way he could be worse than Bush). Bush did a lot of bad things and every one of them were just terrible for the cause of liberty in this country. Obama hasn't been worse but he's been just as bad in a shady way that few liberals will even admit.

BrianFlanders

FlyersFan
He's the least objectionable Republican who will probably be running.
He can't do worse than Obama and Bush43.

That's what I thought about Obama (That there was no way he could be worse than Bush). Bush did a lot of bad things and every one of them were just terrible for the cause of liberty in this country. Obama hasn't been worse but he's been just as bad in a shady way that few liberals will even admit.

For one thing, Obama isn't a liberal! He campaigned as a liberal and got elected but he is just like "W" a neocon sell out to the Corporations. The republicans love to demonize Obama but behind the scenes they applaud his every move.

The CPAC straw polls are so spot on in picking winners...just ask former Presidents; Pat Buchannan, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann.

TextYeah man. I don't like it when someone refers to me or a person like Rand Paul as one specific thing. At least for me Im all over the board . I don't like violence and I don't like giving 30% of my profits to other peole But Ill give some but prefer less. Stop giving money to other countries, get a hold on the national debt, how high can it go ? Id also like to make a point that Rand is not perfect in my eyes, no politicians are, but the other dems and repubs are REALLY bad. Just imagine if Ted Cruz was prez,,that would be bad. Rick Perry , bless his heart, he has actually shocked me lately being outspoken on certain things that I would think Christians would want to remain illegal. I remember when Romney and Rand had a backroom deal, but then again Ron Paul came in second in the straw poll last time and he was treated as non existent. I think Michelle BachMAN HusbANDwife came in first. Good luck to him. Before you slam him on ATS all I ask is PLEASE JUST LOOK AT THE OTHERS before you do that, basically if your cool at all then you will probably choose Rand and place his sticker on your car. lol

olaru12


For one thing, Obama isn't a liberal! He campaigned as a liberal and got elected but he is just like "W" a neocon sell out to the Corporations. The republicans love to demonize Obama but behind the scenes they applaud his every move.

This is exactly what I've suspected since at least 2010. I thought about it from the moment I became aware of him (at the 2004 convention). I was immediately suspicious of him but at the time, I already had severe Bush fatigue and was willing to pretty much take a chance on anything.

reply to post by theyknowwhoyouare


I think it would make a difference, at least as long as he is in office long enough before they ineffably attempt to assassinate him.

reply to post by buster2010


That was the cost for being president. If he did not support Mitt than he will never have a chance to get the nomination. Sometimes u just have to play chess not checkers. Obviously his father knew what he was doing.