Rand Paul Calls For A New GOP

[bendog]

And again, why would you not call that a "win" for the entire country? Would you prefer to see a more effective Rovist/neo-con Republican party?

I realize you're preoccupied with the left/right/demo/repub pissing match - but I think you're missing point of what the agenda has been all along. The point of the libertarian movement - as expressed by the Paul's et. al. - has always been to transform the party. And most of the ways they want to change the party should be welcome news to liberals with any real concern for the direction of the country.

The only Democrats who should feel threatened by Rand Paul and the effort to make the Republicans more libertarian are those who are primarily centrist authoritarians. Like their brethren in the Republican party, they are the target of the movement.

We're trying to wrestle control of our government away from the corporatists currently running it into the ground. I'd think genuine liberals and progressives would applaud the effort, even if they distrust the ideology behind it.

I'm trying to understand your post, and Paul, but two things don't ring true to me.

1. Aren't these the very people who elected Paul? " anti-choice, anti-labor, pro-gun movements, and the crusade to get Christian prayer back into government offices and the public school system. "

I don't know. Not sure what it has to do with my point.

2. How do you wrestle control away from the "corporatists" (by which I assume you mean the people in both parties owned by the 1%) by simply eliminating soc sec and medicare and any regulation of biz?

Your assumption is wrong. Corporatism is a broader problem than rich people manipulating government. It's government that has 'manipulation' as its mission statement.

Well the thread is premised upon Paul having some support outside the "pro gun, anti labor, anti choice, pro school prayer" and frankly racist folks, yet that pretty much sums up his Kentucky base imo. So, I just don't see this "remake the gop thing" in the first place. It's the same gop only without "let's bomb tehran" idiocy of McCain/Bushii.

Corporatism is a noun with multiple meanings. I believe you are using in a way not normally used. So, perhaps you can tell me what you mean by it, as I'm not guessing correctly.

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Contumacious]

It is amazing that Rand Paul could view the results of the last election and conclude that the reason Republicans lost is because they are not more like him

Not really.

Up until getting into congress..he wanted to roll back civil rights as it pertained to private industry. And at the Benghazi Hearings he asked about arms shipments through Turkey, an issue that outside of conservative blogs, had no legs.

And although his holding the floor during a filibuster was admirable..the content of what he was saying was ridiculous.

Yes, indeed it was.

Preventing the President from using drones to murder Americans in US Soil is no longer a civil rights - constitutional issue.


.

 

[Sallow]

I'm trying to understand your post, and Paul, but two things don't ring true to me.

1. Aren't these the very people who elected Paul? " anti-choice, anti-labor, pro-gun movements, and the crusade to get Christian prayer back into government offices and the public school system. "

I don't know. Not sure what it has to do with my point.

2. How do you wrestle control away from the "corporatists" (by which I assume you mean the people in both parties owned by the 1%) by simply eliminating soc sec and medicare and any regulation of biz?

Your assumption is wrong. Corporatism is a broader problem than rich people manipulating government. It's government that has 'manipulation' as its mission statement.

Well the thread is premised upon Paul having some support outside the "pro gun, anti labor, anti choice, pro school prayer" and frankly racist folks, yet that pretty much sums up his Kentucky base imo. So, I just don't see this "remake the gop thing" in the first place. It's the same gop only without "let's bomb tehran" idiocy of McCain/Bushii.

Corporatism is a noun with multiple meanings. I believe you are using in a way not normally used. So, perhaps you can tell me what you mean by it, as I'm not guessing correctly.

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll take a crack at this one.

I think he's using the Mussolini meaning.

Which, is sort of a marriage between government and corporate heads.

 

[dblack]

I'm trying to understand your post, and Paul, but two things don't ring true to me.

1. Aren't these the very people who elected Paul? " anti-choice, anti-labor, pro-gun movements, and the crusade to get Christian prayer back into government offices and the public school system. "

I don't know. Not sure what it has to do with my point.

2. How do you wrestle control away from the "corporatists" (by which I assume you mean the people in both parties owned by the 1%) by simply eliminating soc sec and medicare and any regulation of biz?

Your assumption is wrong. Corporatism is a broader problem than rich people manipulating government. It's government that has 'manipulation' as its mission statement.

Well the thread is premised upon Paul having some support outside the "pro gun, anti labor, anti choice, pro school prayer" and frankly racist folks, yet that pretty much sums up his Kentucky base imo. So, I just don't see this "remake the gop thing" in the first place. It's the same gop only without "let's bomb tehran" idiocy of McCain/Bushii.

Corporatism is a noun with multiple meanings. I believe you are using in a way not normally used. So, perhaps you can tell me what you mean by it, as I'm not guessing correctly.

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah.. the wiki piece covers it pretty well. Go with that. The main thing is that it's not, as is popularly mis-conceived, corporations colluding with government, or policy that is 'pro-corporate'. Corporatism is the replacement of rule of law founded on individual rights, with rule by decree based on group identity. It's government that operates by distributing favor and penalty in an effort to balance all the competing interest groups in society.

 

[Sallow]

It is amazing that Rand Paul could view the results of the last election and conclude that the reason Republicans lost is because they are not more like him

Not really.

Up until getting into congress..he wanted to roll back civil rights as it pertained to private industry. And at the Benghazi Hearings he asked about arms shipments through Turkey, an issue that outside of conservative blogs, had no legs.

And although his holding the floor during a filibuster was admirable..the content of what he was saying was ridiculous.

Yes, indeed it was.

Preventing the President from using drones to murder Americans in US Soil is no longer a civil rights - constitutional issue.


.

The President and the AG both addressed the issue.

Which, in itself, was ridiculous.

 

[Sallow]

I don't know. Not sure what it has to do with my point.



Your assumption is wrong. Corporatism is a broader problem than rich people manipulating government. It's government that has 'manipulation' as its mission statement.

Well the thread is premised upon Paul having some support outside the "pro gun, anti labor, anti choice, pro school prayer" and frankly racist folks, yet that pretty much sums up his Kentucky base imo. So, I just don't see this "remake the gop thing" in the first place. It's the same gop only without "let's bomb tehran" idiocy of McCain/Bushii.

Corporatism is a noun with multiple meanings. I believe you are using in a way not normally used. So, perhaps you can tell me what you mean by it, as I'm not guessing correctly.

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah.. the wiki piece covers it pretty well. Go with that. The main thing is that it's not, as is popularly mis-conceived, corporations colluding with government, or policy that is 'pro-corporate'. Corporatism is the replacement of rule of law founded on individual rights, with rule by decree based on group identity. It's government that operates by distributing favor and penalty in an effort to balance all the competing interest groups in society.

Oh my bad.

He's made up a totally new meaning.

 

[Mac1958]

I'd like the OLD GOP back, personally.

Yup.

But I don't think they can get there from here.

.

 

[bendog]

It's government that operates by distributing favor and penalty in an effort to balance all the competing interest groups in society.

yeah, but isn't that essentially what the federalists and jeffersonians debates were about? And again with Jackson v. the fed bank?

But, in a nutshell, if Paul's views on market regulation were put into effect, the 1% would simply own everything, so I don't see that he's anythign but their tool. Of course, so is McConnell and the dems are as well, though each party only retains pol power when the middle percieves it as marginally better for them than the other party.

 

[dblack]

Well the thread is premised upon Paul having some support outside the "pro gun, anti labor, anti choice, pro school prayer" and frankly racist folks, yet that pretty much sums up his Kentucky base imo. So, I just don't see this "remake the gop thing" in the first place. It's the same gop only without "let's bomb tehran" idiocy of McCain/Bushii.

Corporatism is a noun with multiple meanings. I believe you are using in a way not normally used. So, perhaps you can tell me what you mean by it, as I'm not guessing correctly.

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah.. the wiki piece covers it pretty well. Go with that. The main thing is that it's not, as is popularly mis-conceived, corporations colluding with government, or policy that is 'pro-corporate'. Corporatism is the replacement of rule of law founded on individual rights, with rule by decree based on group identity. It's government that operates by distributing favor and penalty in an effort to balance all the competing interest groups in society.

Oh my bad.

He's made up a totally new meaning.

What are you talking about? Who made up a meaning?

 

[bendog]

Not really.

Up until getting into congress..he wanted to roll back civil rights as it pertained to private industry. And at the Benghazi Hearings he asked about arms shipments through Turkey, an issue that outside of conservative blogs, had no legs.

And although his holding the floor during a filibuster was admirable..the content of what he was saying was ridiculous.

Yes, indeed it was.

Preventing the President from using drones to murder Americans in US Soil is no longer a civil rights - constitutional issu
.

The President and the AG both addressed the issue.

Which, in itself, was ridiculous.

yeah, it was just Paul giving his audience a John Galt fantasy moment.

 

[bendog]

Yeah.. the wiki piece covers it pretty well. Go with that. The main thing is that it's not, as is popularly mis-conceived, corporations colluding with government, or policy that is 'pro-corporate'. Corporatism is the replacement of rule of law founded on individual rights, with rule by decree based on group identity. It's government that operates by distributing favor and penalty in an effort to balance all the competing interest groups in society.

Oh my bad.

He's made up a totally new meaning.

What are you talking about? Who made up a meaning?

I'm not sure whether its a new meaning or not, but it seems pretty much like channelling Ayn Rand.

 

[Contumacious]

Not really.

Up until getting into congress..he wanted to roll back civil rights as it pertained to private industry. And at the Benghazi Hearings he asked about arms shipments through Turkey, an issue that outside of conservative blogs, had no legs.

And although his holding the floor during a filibuster was admirable..the content of what he was saying was ridiculous.

Yes, indeed it was.

Preventing the President from using drones to murder Americans in US Soil is no longer a civil rights - constitutional issue.


.

The President and the AG both addressed the issue.

Which, in itself, was ridiculous.

Barack Obama 'has authority to use drone strikes to kill Americans on US soil'

.

 

[Sallow]

[/B]

Yes, indeed it was.

Preventing the President from using drones to murder Americans in US Soil is no longer a civil rights - constitutional issu
.

The President and the AG both addressed the issue.

Which, in itself, was ridiculous.

yeah, it was just Paul giving his audience a John Galt fantasy moment.

The fun part would be replacing "drones" with "guns".

And watching the hootin and hollerin.

Common sense tells you that there are circumstances where people break laws and refuse to submit to law enforcement officials that justify the use of guns to stop their criminal activities.

 

[emptystep]

I like the OP's vision of the Republican party. I don't see how that lines up with Rand Paul very much.

Having a debate with Old GOP, as referred to, is what this country needs. There is one party way off somewhere and one party with the right general idea but suffering from group think. We have to go with group think until the another party balances the equation. Unfortunately we don't have time to wait. Ryan's budget is so far out there it offers nothing to work with. The only way forward is to squash the Republican party until they reform.

 

[Contumacious]

The President and the AG both addressed the issue.

Which, in itself, was ridiculous.

yeah, it was just Paul giving his audience a John Galt fantasy moment.

The fun part would be replacing "drones" with "guns".

And watching the hootin and hollerin.

Common sense tells you that there are circumstances where people break laws and refuse to submit to law enforcement officials that justify the use of guns to stop their criminal activities.

Why is it that that Obama arms Libyan and Syrian insurgents to fight against their own government but we have no right to protect ourselves against ours?!?!?!?!?

.

.

 

[bendog]

yeah, it was just Paul giving his audience a John Galt fantasy moment.

The fun part would be replacing "drones" with "guns".

And watching the hootin and hollerin.

Common sense tells you that there are circumstances where people break laws and refuse to submit to law enforcement officials that justify the use of guns to stop their criminal activities.

Why is it that that Obama arms Libyan and Syrian insurgents to fight against their own government but we have no right to protect ourselves against ours?!?!?!?!?

.

.

Are you being targeted by a drone, and if you don't know, what rationally deduced fact leads you to think you are being targeted. (though quite probably our comments to each other are being randomly sampled.)

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Isn't that one percent, protect the rich song and dance getting a little old even for democrats? I realize they love repetition and sloganeering, but they're abusing the privilege. Perhaps if they recruit just a few people who aren't brain-damaged by public education or obsessed with getting a fat pension from the government, a sliver of creativity might knife its way through their juvenile rhetoric.

I'm kidding myself. That ain't going to happen.

It pleases me, though, that they are leveling their pop guns at Rand Paul. Unfortunately for them, they popped that cork long ago with their vicious media onslaught against Sarah Palin revealing themselves to be the sexist, anti-Christian, raving mongrels intelligent people always suspected them of being.

Now they seem genuinely upset that many of their "constituents" -- women, young people, minorities -- may see through their thin veil of humanity and recognize them for the power hungry, jaded mandarins they really are.

Things like self-reliance, personal liberty, individual autonomy are anathema to them. They are desperately pulling every trick out of their limited bag to marginalize Rand Paul. Who can blame them?

They are a simple lot and feel threatened. It's normal behavior for them. Somewhere in the dim recesses of their primitive brains, they know that their orgy of lies and excess is coming to an end.

I would pity them if they weren't so dangerous to both themselves and our country.

At least they'll be able to collect unemployment insurance for a while. After that, I don't know. It's certain that they are unqualified for honest work. I don't know what will happen to them.

 

[dblack]

Oh my bad.

He's made up a totally new meaning.

What are you talking about? Who made up a meaning?

I'm not sure whether its a new meaning or not, but it seems pretty much like channelling Ayn Rand.

Are you talking about the wikipedia article?

 

[bendog]

Isn't that one percent, protect the rich song and dance getting a little old even for democrats? I realize they love repetition and sloganeering, but they're abusing the privilege. Perhaps if they recruit just a few people who aren't brain-damaged by public education or obsessed with getting a fat pension from the government, a sliver of creativity might knife its way through their juvenile rhetoric.

I'm kidding myself. That ain't going to happen.

It pleases me, though, that they are leveling their pop guns at Rand Paul. Unfortunately for them, they pooped that cork long ago with their vicious media onslaught against Sarah Palin revealing themselves to be the sexist, anti-Christian, raving mongrels intelligent people always suspected them of being.

Now they seem genuinely upset that many of their "constituents" -- women, young people, minorities -- may see through their thin veil of humanity and recognize them for the power hungry, jaded mandarins they really are.

Things like self-reliance, personal liberty, individual autonomy are anathema to them. They are desperately pulling every trick out of their limited bag to marginalize Rand Paul. Who can blame them?

They are a simple lot and feel threatened. It's normal behavior for them. Somewhere in the dim recesses of their primitive brains, they know that their orgy of lies and excess is coming to an end.

I would pity them if they weren't so dangerous to both themselves and our country.

At least they'll be able to collect unemployment insurance for a while. After that, I don't know. It's certain that they are unqualified for honest work. I don't know what will happen to them.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the "democrat" crack. I think the thread presupposes, and explicitly states, both Obama and McConnell acted to protect Goldman Sachs and "the one percent."

My question was how does Rand Paul protect me from losing my economic gains secured by largely progressive movements beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and continuing through Reagan? Personally I view his views of total market regulation to being as hostile to me as Lenin.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Isn't that one percent, protect the rich song and dance getting a little old even for democrats? I realize they love repetition and sloganeering, but they're abusing the privilege. Perhaps if they recruit just a few people who aren't brain-damaged by public education or obsessed with getting a fat pension from the government, a sliver of creativity might knife its way through their juvenile rhetoric.

I'm kidding myself. That ain't going to happen.

It pleases me, though, that they are leveling their pop guns at Rand Paul. Unfortunately for them, they pooped that cork long ago with their vicious media onslaught against Sarah Palin revealing themselves to be the sexist, anti-Christian, raving mongrels intelligent people always suspected them of being.

Now they seem genuinely upset that many of their "constituents" -- women, young people, minorities -- may see through their thin veil of humanity and recognize them for the power hungry, jaded mandarins they really are.

Things like self-reliance, personal liberty, individual autonomy are anathema to them. They are desperately pulling every trick out of their limited bag to marginalize Rand Paul. Who can blame them?

They are a simple lot and feel threatened. It's normal behavior for them. Somewhere in the dim recesses of their primitive brains, they know that their orgy of lies and excess is coming to an end.

I would pity them if they weren't so dangerous to both themselves and our country.

At least they'll be able to collect unemployment insurance for a while. After that, I don't know. It's certain that they are unqualified for honest work. I don't know what will happen to them.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the "democrat" crack. I think the thread presupposes, and explicitly states, both Obama and McConnell acted to protect Goldman Sachs and "the one percent."

My question was how does Rand Paul protect me from losing my economic gains secured by largely progressive movements beginning with Teddy Roosevelt and continuing through Reagan? Personally I view his views of total market regulation to being as hostile to me as Lenin.

What economic gains? Welfare checks? Government jobs? Fat contracts with local pols?

Be specific.