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 latest polling numbers

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Well, looks like the latest numbers for Rand Paul, the darling of the Libertarian crowd, is leading by a 15 point margin.

Looks to me like the smear campaigns by the MSM and other sources are failing.

From this article-Rand Paul Leads in Kentucky Polling



Paul, a libertarian ophthalmologist, is one of several tea party candidates who won a nomination without the endorsement of Republican Party leaders this year. In Nevada, Sharron Angle won the GOP nomination for a Senate seat even though she wasn’t Sen. John Cornyn’s top pick. Sen. Cornyn (R., Texas) helps coordinate the GOP’s Senate campaigns.

Alaska incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski last week conceded the GOP primary battle to tea party candidate Joe Miller.


All I have to say is that with the Dems not only running away from Obama but also running away from their own party, I think this election you will see a slaughter of the Dem party candidates.

I just hope the progressives in the Repub and Dem party can be stopped from their tactics. We all know both parties have their progressive infiltrators. Look at this blatant example of the progressive machine destroying our election system-

Republican Scozzafava Backs Democrat in New York Congress Race

We have to remember that it does not matter on the Party name, we have to look at the candidate. As one example, I would personally vote against McCain to get one of the RINO's out of office.

And the libertarian and freedom movement keeps rolling on.

GO GET EM TEA PARTY!


[edit on 6-9-2010 by saltheart foamfollower]




posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Can't say I am surprised? Neither Will I be surprised if he wins. Kentucky has always been a steadfast conservative state.

With the exception fo Wendell Ford the State has held Republican senators since 1957. Even Wendell was conservative despite him carrying the 'D' next to his name. He was one of those old time dixie Democrats who never made the party switch to Republican like the rest of his buddies. He opposed desegregating school buses mind you.

As for Rand Paul being the 'darling Libertarian'
Really? Did you think before typing that? In anycase Rand Paul is just another Republican pretending to be different to the rest. He is no different from the many other Republicans and Democrats who have time after time rallied themselves as some 'revolutionary' candidate. Pritty soon he'll get sucked in with the rest of the neoconservatives.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Can't say I am surprised? Neither Will I be surprised if he wins. Kentucky has always been a steadfast conservative state.


Actually you are wrong. Kentucky actually use to be one of the more Left-wing states, as long as you don't equate Left with Liberal. The Southeast was the most Left-wing part of the country until 1968.

Did you know that Mississippi and South Carolina gave the Democrats, in presidential elections, upwards of 90-98% of the vote? It's true, but you know what happened in 1968? Well the Liberals took over the Democratic Party, they were more focused on Cultural Issues rather than economic issues.

When this occurred they adopted a Centrist Economic position which permitted them to work alongside Republicans on the economy and fight the Republicans on the Culture Wars. Obviously the South did not support Cultural Liberalization and neither did the Republicans. So Richard Nixon capitalized off of this change and transformed the Republican Party into the party of Christian Values and Social Conservatism to woo the Southern voters.

The Southeast, Great Plains and Upper Mountain West were the places that fought tooth and nail for Social Security, Unemployment benefits, labor union rights, workers rights, public works and government intervention against Corporations. But during this era from 1870-1960 the Southeast was known as the 'Solid South'.

But why did the Democrats control this region? They talked about the classes in America, they talked about the gap between the rich and the poor, they talked about how the middle class was being destroyed, they talked about lifting people out of poverty by using the government. But they did not talk about cultural issues, EVER, nor did they ever make any Cultural Legislation(with few exceptions).

The Southeast, Great Plains and Upper Mountain West are now known as Hard-Core Conservative locations, but just 50 years ago they would have been known as the most Left-wing Socialist parts of the country. And it all leads back to the Democratic Party adopting a Centrist Economic Agenda and a Socially Progressive Agenda. This has led them to be endorsed by the Northeast, Great Lakes and Pacific Coast states which use to be known as the most Capitalist, Progressive and Elitist parts of the country.

So you can call Kentucky Conservative now, but that is only because the Democrats aren't willing to return to their roots of Economic Populism. The now Republicans states are more worried about their Cultural Values now because the Democrats have shunned Class Issues. And if a part offers you neither of what you are looking for (Democrats) and the Republicans offer you at least one of the two you are looking for, you will vote for the party that offers you the one.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower


Paul, a libertarian ophthalmologist, is one of several tea party candidates who won a nomination without the endorsement of Republican Party leaders this year.




You article starts off with a lie in the first 4 words.

Just thought that seemed important.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 



With the exception fo Wendell Ford the State has held Republican senators since 1957. Even Wendell was conservative despite him carrying the 'D' next to his name. He was one of those old time dixie Democrats who never made the party switch to Republican like the rest of his buddies. He opposed desegregating school buses mind you.



Oops. You forgot Walter "Dee" Huddleston, a Dem who served from 1973-1985, being elected 3 times. Parts of Kentucky are rabidly Republican, including the Eastern counties where I grew up and a few counties in the Western part. Paul has hurt himself, though, in the Eastern counties by saying he would end federal funding of anti-drug efforts in those counties, which, as they say there, are "ate up" with drug corruption and meth problems. He also hurt himself by saying he would push for less safety regulation of underground mining. He also didn't help himself in big cities Louisville and Lexington by insinuating he might be in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Rand Paul is NOT AT ALL like the neoconservatives, what are you talking about? He has far more in common with the Tea Party movement than he does with contemporary Republicanism.

For example, take his stance on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He believes that after 9/11, Congress should have declared war on Afghanistan. He also believes the Iraq War is a giant blunder, and that Congress should not declare war on them (as if they were going to).

You can disagree with his stances on these issues, but what separates him from the rest is that his stances are 100% Constitutional. Neoconservatives are nation builders and are constantly pushing to expand the US empire. Rand wants none of that.

Did you think before typing that?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 


My article?

So, Rand Paul is not a libertarian opthamologist?


You are SOOO funny.

Also, the article starts off with? The part you quoted is halfway into the article.

Tell me, are you working from a boiler room?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by cindyremains
 


My article?


The article you used to start your OP with. Did I really lose you already with that?


So, Rand Paul is not a libertarian opthamologist?


No.


You are SOOO funny.


Apparently.


Also, the article starts off with? The part you quoted is halfway into the article.


No, the part you quoted starts halfway down the article. Sorry I did not specify YOUR QUOTE STARTS OFF WITH A LIE IN THE FIRST 4 WORDS. I did not realize you would be so easily confused, my bad. Better now?


Tell me, are you working from a boiler room?


Yes, it is so hot down here you are getting all kinds of confused.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 


So how would you describe him.

Oh wait, let me.

He is a racist windbag that is a neocon and anything else you can dream up.

Am I right?


Your supervisor is not very happy with your efforts lately. Better start looking for other work.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


What is actually wrong with you? When did I say, infer, or hint at any of those things anywhere? What planet are you even on at the moment? Clearly you do not know all that much about Rand if you are thrown into this kind of mindless frenzy over my pointing out a lie.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 


Really, lie, what is the lie and prove it. Put up or shut up as they say.

Give us PROOF, that what you are calling a lie is a lie.

Otherwise you are using argumentum ad hominem as USUAL.

So, what are you calling a lie, ophthalmologist or libertarian?

Or are you just using the lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie argument?



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by cindyremains
 


Really, lie, what is the lie


He is not an opthamologist.


and prove it.


Rand Paul not board certified


Put up or shut up as they say.


I was having too much fun watching you answer for me.


Give us PROOF, that what you are calling a lie is a lie.

Otherwise you are using argumentum ad hominem as USUAL.


As usual?


So, what are you calling a lie, ophthalmologist or libertarian?

Or are you just using the lie is a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie argument?


With supporters as ignorant as yourself, he should do ok.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Rand paul is absolutely nothing like his father, now i would agree that this would actually be a good thing in some ways as it would be wrong imo simply to vote for Rand because his father is Ron....the only problem is that when i say he is not like Ron, i mean that in a very, very negative way. I heard Ron paul is running in 2012 again? hopefully people finally come to their senses and vote him in to office, although sadly they obviously won't...



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 


Thanks for the hit piece.

Goes to show everyone the lengths that the HuffPo will go, along with their minions.

So a group that has NOTHING to do with licensing, does not like it that Rand Paul created a rival group, and THAT is your argument.

For those that want to hear the most important part of the article that cindyremains LYING linked to, here it is!

Neither group has anything to do with medical licensure, which is handled by state boards.




posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by cindyremains
 


Thanks for the hit piece.


If it is simply a hit piece, then you can dispute the fact that he is not board certified?

Ready? Go!



Goes to show everyone the lengths that the HuffPo will go, along with their minions.


Sure, just prove me wrong.


So a group that has NOTHING to do with licensing, does not like it that Rand Paul created a rival group, and THAT is your argument.


Um no. The fact that he is actually not a legally certified doctor is my argument.


For those that want to hear the most important part of the article that cindyremains LYING linked to, here it is!

Neither group has anything to do with medical licensure, which is handled by state boards.



You sure went a long way to miss the point didn't you.

He is not board certified. It is that simple.



[edit on 6-9-2010 by cindyremains]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Son of Will
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Rand Paul is NOT AT ALL like the neoconservatives,


Many of the neoconservatives do not consider themselves neoconservate infact many of them ran for the first time on the same 'talk' as rand Paul did. Take for instance Gingrich or Steele or even McCain, look back to the first time they ran in their campaigns and what will you get? What you think they announced they were going to be Washington elites the first time they ran? They claimed the same things Rand Paul is claiming now, as has the vast majority of politicians today. Stating that they are 'different', that they are 'average joes', that the government is 'out of control' that they are going to change that, that they know true conservatives values.

What Rand Paul is spewing in his campaign is little to no different to what many of the neoconservatives did and said when they first Ran. But hey, I'll look forward to catching up with yall in say 2 years or so to see where Rand Paul has ended up.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Southern Guardian]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by cindyremains
Um no. The fact that he is actually not a legally certified doctor is my argument.


Then your argument falls flat. He has his M.D. from Duke, completed his residency, and has been legally licensed to practice medicine in Kentucky since 1993.

ABO, and ABMS certifications have nothing to do with being "legally certified", or (more accurately) being "certified" has no legal bearing on whether or not one can practice medicine. State boards handle legal licenses, and his license in KY is in good standing with no history of disciplinary action.

You seem confused regarding the legal ramifications in relation to "certifications" vs. having an actual "license" to practice.

[edit on 9/6/10 by redmage]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
Then your argument falls flat. He has his M.D. from Duke, completed his residency, and has been legally licensed to practice medicine in Kentucky since 1993.

ABO, and ABMS certifications have nothing to do with being "legally certified", or (more accurately) being "certified" has no legal bearing on whether or not one can practice medicine. State boards handle legal licenses, and his license in KY is in good standing with no history of disciplinary action.

[edit on 9/6/10 by redmage]



Libertarian Rand Paul, the eye doctor turned Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky, may not be a "board-certified" ophthalmologist, as he reportedly claimed. Paul's certification comes from a board he incorporated and heads, but he hasn't been certified by an organization recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties for five years. When reporters asked Paul to explain, he said, "What does this have to do with our election?" He subsequently released a statement saying he had a certification from the main medical board until 2005, but let it lapse to protest a decision to make doctors get recertified every 10 years. Will the confusion hurt Paul's candidacy? (Watch Rand Paul — dressed in scrubs — discuss health care last year)

source


By night, one-man rLOVEution Rand Paul is a libertarian hero. By day, he has a job as an ophthalmologist, a kind of eye doctor that heals people who can’t see liberty. Except the American Board of Ophthalmology, the board that certifies ophthalmologists, says he isn’t one.


source



As we reported last month, Paul is the founder and president of the National Board of Ophthalmology, a certifying board for eye doctors that has left little public record, and whose legitimacy seems unclear at best. He hasn't been certified by the mainstream board since 2005. He is certified by the NBO.

The Courier-Journal points out today that Paul's board "is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, which works with the American Medical Association to approve such specialty boards."


source

But he is an honest and good Christian man with nothing to hide.


Asked when he would talk, Paul said: "Uh, you know, never. ... What does this have to do with our election?"



Rand Paul: Not a Certified Ophthalmologist


source


It might help to understand the difference between general practicioner and opthomologist.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by cindyremains]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 


Again, you're missing the point. The certifications you're referencing have no legal relevance; however, he is licensed to legally practice medicine in Kentucky; so he is an ophthalmologist legally.

You're trying to imply there's a legal relevance to these certifications when there is none.

Legality only comes into play regarding whether or not he's licensed by the state, and he is.

[edit on 9/6/10 by redmage]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


You are missing the point. In Kentucky it is legal to operate as a doctor without being board certified. That is one of the many reasons Paul lives in Kentucky. He can "legally" get away without being board certified. Now explain to me why he would run into trouble "legally" getting licensed in the other 49 states where a BOARD CERTIFIED OPTHAMOLOGIST would not.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join