Rand Paul Calls For A New GOP

[Rocko]

Rand Pauls GOP would never win an election

Maybe not. But if they supplant Karl Rove's GOP, I call it a win.

A win for the Democrats

The Paul faction would become a congressional subset incapable of influencing any major issue

Voting no on every bill is not a position

You have to agree with Obama to have a position?

 

[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.


.

As if that was a real issue to begin with. So what's next then? Legislation preventing the President from using death rays from the secret moon base?

Next? How about staying still so that we can perform a frontal lobotomy on you !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Barack Obama 'can use drones to kill Americans on US soil

This is the extraordinary admission in a leaked memo from the US attorney-general Eric Holder.

.

 

[bendog]

Did you know that if a muslim american from Tonontaka NY (whatever) was flying a piper cub into a nuclear power plant Obama could order him killed by an F-16 with a sidewinder? I am shocked. I fearful. My safety, my freedom ... why I dare say me very life essense is offended and compromised by the outrageous excess of power.

 

[Borillar]

[/B]

Yes, indeed it was.

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


.

As if that was a real issue to begin with. So what's next then? Legislation preventing the President from using death rays from the secret moon base?

Next? How about staying still so that we can perform a frontal lobotomy on you !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Barack Obama 'can use drones to kill Americans on US soil

This is the extraordinary admission in a leaked memo from the US attorney-general Eric Holder.

.

And Holder has since said that the President doesn't have the right to use them on Americans not engaged in combat on American soil.

Wake me up when the drones come this way. I'm sure the black helicopters will not be far behind.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Despite the neoconservatives’ beliefs, the Republican Party works exclusively for Big Business and the one percent. Except for the economically moot issues of being anti-choice, pro-gun, and convincing the Christian right that God speaks to the GOP, the chief focus of Republicans holding office is to protect the profits the very rich and find ways to make these profits grow.

For some reason Rand Paul believes the Republican Party must reinvent itself, and to do this they must connect with the Facebook generation. Paul wants the GOP to lead the fight in decriminalizing drug use, which is something Christian faith could not allow. Also, poor, naive Rand wants the GOP to go into the inner cities and shout at the top of their lungs "we are the party of jobs and opportunity. The GOP is the ticket to the middle class."

To Paul this all sounds great, but to the rank and file neoconservative voters it smacks of affirmative action and liberalism.

It would be a questionable boon to the GOP if they could convince minorities it was true, but given their devotion to Big Business and the super rich, the Republicans could never deliver the jobs, the opportunities, or the ticket to the middle class. This inability of the GOP would be exposed immediately after their first win helped by minorities who briefly believed in the empty Republican promises.

Add to the perception that the GOP was embracing affirmative action, by decriminalizing of drugs, far more neocon voters would join the Tea Party than minority voters would turn their support to the Republicans. This shows Rand Paul’s idea to be the folly it is.

The many, many misconceptions conservatives and neoconservatives hold for minorities has them believing are all stupid, unskilled, and lazy. This unchangeable mindset will work against the Republicans, because any overtures to these groups by the GOP will be patently insincere.

Presently, the Democrats are able to exploit the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and some disabled veterans by keeping entitlements in place that allow these groups to maintain a meager but tentative level of life. But the Democratic Party is nothing more than a coalition of factions, the Blue Dogs that are just GOP lite, the centrists, the liberal, and extreme liberals. These groups, although identifying themselves as Democrats, actually agree on very few issues. However, when the Republicans are in power, they can usually count on the Blue Dogs and the centrists to vote for most Republican bills, and against any proposed by their more liberal Congressional brethren.

Boehner and McConnell need only maintain the G”NO”P obstructionism until 2014, and by then the voters will be convinced it is time for a change. They will have forgotten why the country has been in a recession for over six years, and they won’t remember how the debt rose to such levels. With their victory in 2014, the Republicans will set the stage for a resounding comeback in 2016.

They will have the sound majority in Congress with the Blue Dog and centrist Democrats rubberstamping all Republican sponsored legislation. It will be a repeat of the Bush/Cheney years.

There are powerful individuals at the very top of the one percent that, for many years, have called the shots from behind the scenes. They command the Republican Party, and most other politicians, to do what they are paid to do, which is to look out for the best interests of the very rich. This means Rand Paul’s plan is out of the question and the same tired and destructive agenda of Reaganomics the Republican Party has pressed for the past thirty-plus years will stay in place.

However, to maintain voter distraction, the Republican Party, at all levels, must go ahead with their anti-choice, anti-labor, pro-gun movements, and the crusade to get Christian prayer back into government offices and the public school system. With these noisemaking issues keeping what is truly important out of the public eye, the main focus can remain on deregulation, tax cuts, increased defense spending, and the elimination of costly entitlement programs. These are the core issues that keep the neocons voting against their own economic interests, and will allow the conservatives in both parties to keep the income gap widening, the middle class shrinking, and the nation's debt growing.



Sen. Rand Paul calls for new Republican Party - MarketWatch

.

They'd first do well to disassociate themselves with False, er, I mean Fox News. That would restore a lot of credibility.

 

[Erand7899]

Rand Paul kind of shows where the GOP has gone wrong.

The GOP used to be about suggesting private sector or more efficient solutions to problems.

Now they are just about hating government on principle that government itself it evil.

The idea that Republicans and/or conservatives hate government is so patently dumb as to automatically degrade the intelligence level of people who post such nonsense. Government is like fire. It is a very useful tool when it is well managed and controlled, but it is terrible when it is out of control. Recognizing that simple fact does not mean one hates fire or government.

Fire is controlled by limiting the size and spread of the fire, and government must be controlled the same way. Fire must be watched continuously, and so must government. Give either one too much of a chance, and you get your ass burned.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The GOP you fuckin retard, the leadership, not the entire voter base...

more than two people ?????

Vulgar namecalling .... seriosly .... is that what you got?

Then you really don't have much other than a big and vulgar mouth now do you?

What you said makes no sense. Obama had more support than 2 people for a group... Hell, every person on the planet does at some point.

What I said was that it is darn near impossible to get 100% support from any group that has more than two people in it.

Clearly your "he'll get 100% support from GOP leadership" statement was absurd - on its face. There has never been a presidential candidate who had the support of 100% of even his own party's leadership.

Yet you claim that in this divisive climate, that this divisive candidate will have 100% support.

It's a stupid, impossible statement and I called you on it. Then you got your panties in a bunch and got offensive and vulgar.

Yeah, I get it. Your a big fan and a cheerleader. You're all in.

That doesn't excuse presenting fantasy as a legitimate opinion.

 

[Erand7899]

Interesting read. I am old enough to remember when Republicans were conservatives. But since the Reagan radicalism has infested the GOP, conservatism is dead in that party.


Market Radicals: The GOP's Betrayal of Conservatism

Excerpt:

In fact, fiscal crisis has become the Republicans' favorite tool for forcing government contraction. This is the party's worst-kept secret: they slash public revenues when they come to power, which precipitates fiscal crisis--the massive Bush tax cuts contributed greatly to the current fiscal mess--and then they demand painful reductions in public spending. Does anyone seriously believe that, if only the budget were balanced and the deficit paid--as they were under Bill Clinton in the late 1990s--the Republican Party would stop demanding painful cuts to public services? Fiscal prudence is not their aim; their aim is to "starve the beast." In other words: the aim is to inaugurate a bold political experiment--an experiment in market radicalism--even at the cost of considerable human suffering.

Market radicalism boils down to a single, shining article of faith: it holds that, freed from government interference, unburdened by regulatory oversight, markets will bring widely shared prosperity whose benefits will more than compensate for its disruptive costs. There is no doubt that minimally regulated markets create great wealth. Whether this wealth could ever be widely shared without ambitious government oversight and redistribution is uncertain at best. In today's global economy, this great libertarian hope stands, arguably, on shakier ground than ever. During America's last three economic recoveries, for example, the benefits of economic growth flowed almost entirely to the wealthy; working-class families lost ground each time, even with help from government.

What you ignorantly refer to as "market radicalism" is nothing more than a call to get the hell out of the way and let the markets work their magic.

You are correct that minimally regulated markets create great wealth, and your objection to that creation of great wealth is that it is not shared in accordance with your wishes. Unless you are the creator of that wealth, it is none of your damn business how it is distributed. If you want some wealth, create your own.

It is also correct that anyone with a lick of common sense knows that he/she is far better off in a wealthy nation than they are in a poor one. A rising tide does lift all boats, but only if those boats are fit to float.

Another point that you make is that even in economic booms, the middle class and the working classes didn't grow at the same rate as the wealthy. Your problem is that you have the wrong reason for that failure to properly thrive. It is called over regulation. The big boys write the regulations, and they write out prospective competition. Get rid of those regulations, and the middle class will grow again, and when the middle class grows, the working class grows.

 

[nodoginnafight]

your objection to that creation of great wealth is that it is not shared in accordance with your wishes

Not me.
My objection to unregulated capitalism is the victims created by ruthless, unregulated folks whose only goal is creating wealth.

I don't give a flying fish about distributing it.

 

[g5000]

[/B]

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'

.

Holder never said that.

 

[Sallow]

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?!?!?!?!?

.

.

This doesn't even make any sense.

What??

 

[g5000]

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.

This logic sails over the heads of the droners. The federal government could have been killing Americans on US soil all along with tanks and planes and pointy knives. Which is why I ask what special unicorn power drones have that will suddenly make the government start doing so.

It's like talking to a blank wall. It contradicts their paranoid fantasy, and so their eyes glaze over and their brains shut down.

 

[g5000]

For some reason Rand Paul believes the Republican Party must reinvent itself, and to do this they must connect with the Facebook generation.

Or as I like to call them, the short attention span generation.

Paul wants the GOP to lead the fight in decriminalizing drug use, which is something Christian faith could not allow.

Good luck getting the votes to legalize crack cocaine!

Also, poor, naive Rand wants the GOP to go into the inner cities and shout at the top of their lungs "we are the party of jobs and opportunity. The GOP is the ticket to the middle class."

The GOP already shouts this. But as you point out, the follow-through totally sucks.

The many, many misconceptions conservatives and neoconservatives hold for minorities has them believing are all stupid, unskilled, and lazy. This unchangeable mindset will work against the Republicans, because any overtures to these groups by the GOP will be patently insincere.

I agree 100 percent with this sentiment. Any time you hear a right winger talking about anything related to minorities, it is always to portray them in a negative light. Food stamps, welfare, ObamaPhones, low IQs, violent crime, etc. They even blame them for the global real estate bubble!

So you are absolutely correct the GOP sounds totally insincere when it claims to be the party which would best serve minorities.

Presently, the Democrats are able to exploit the poor, the disabled, the elderly, and some disabled veterans by keeping entitlements in place that allow these groups to maintain a meager but tentative level of life.

Again, I agree. Minorities have to choose between a party which treats them like children, and a party which hates them.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

So glad we have you to tell us what we think of his suggestions.

That's funny, since neocons can't think.

Rand Paul is a neocon? You realize that Neocon is just a manufactured term right? It doesnt actually mean jack.

Really?

<a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1075556/neoconservatism">Brittanica</a>

<a href="http://www.conservapedia.com/Neoconservatism">Conservapedia</a>

Neoconservatism is a Zionist hook founded in a pseudo cold war mindset and sold wrapped in the US flag; it grabbed that bobbleheaded fuck NeoCon Ron and he sold it to most of the nutball element ever since.

 

[g5000]

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?!?!?!?!?

.

.

Our government is nothing like Syria's. As far as I know, our government is not blowing up whole cities here. But let me check outside my window just to be sure...


Nope. None of our cities are in flames. You can come out of your bunker (mother's basement).

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

This logic sails over the heads of the droners. The federal government could have been killing Americans on US soil all along with tanks and planes and pointy knives. Which is why I ask what special unicorn power drones have that will suddenly make the government start doing so.

It's like talking to a blank wall. It contradicts their paranoid fantasy, and so their eyes glaze over and their brains shut down.

The concern is that drones are used for surveillance as well as state-sanctioned murder. They are a new weapon in the government's arsenal and there is no clear policy on their use.

A resonable person would know that. The fact that it must be explained to you should tell you something.

 

[Borillar]

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.

This logic sails over the heads of the droners. The federal government could have been killing Americans on US soil all along with tanks and planes and pointy knives. Which is why I ask what special unicorn power drones have that will suddenly make the government start doing so.

It's like talking to a blank wall. It contradicts their paranoid fantasy, and so their eyes glaze over and their brains shut down.

The concern is that drones are used for surveillance as well as state-sanctioned murder. They are a new weapon in the government's arsenal and there is no clear policy on their use.

A resonable person would know that. The fact that it must be explained to you should tell you something.

How is it any different from a helicopter or manned aircraft overflights? And since when did the police need to use force in certain situations become murder?

 

[Avorysuds]

more than two people ?????

Vulgar namecalling .... seriosly .... is that what you got?

Then you really don't have much other than a big and vulgar mouth now do you?

What you said makes no sense. Obama had more support than 2 people for a group... Hell, every person on the planet does at some point.

What I said was that it is darn near impossible to get 100% support from any group that has more than two people in it.

Clearly your "he'll get 100% support from GOP leadership" statement was absurd - on its face. There has never been a presidential candidate who had the support of 100% of even his own party's leadership.

Yet you claim that in this divisive climate, that this divisive candidate will have 100% support.

It's a stupid, impossible statement and I called you on it. Then you got your panties in a bunch and got offensive and vulgar.

Yeah, I get it. Your a big fan and a cheerleader. You're all in.

That doesn't excuse presenting fantasy as a legitimate opinion.

I think you took my 100% comment far to literally... Kinda like when you called me a Cheerleader or claimed that I was "all in." Maybe I mostly like Rand, maybe I'm not all in... But I get your point, as you should have understood that by and large the GOP would stand behind Rand if he wins the primaries, if he even runs...

How about this. The SC found Obamacare constitutional (actually it was unconstitutional) with a mandate so it was then changed back to a tax. However the vote was not 100% of the SC that voted Obamacare to be constitutional, yet you could say the SC stands behind Obamacare. So while 100% all the leadership might not like or support Rand (most actually), the GOP as a near whole would back him as they would any candidate, just like the DNC or any party would.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

This logic sails over the heads of the droners. The federal government could have been killing Americans on US soil all along with tanks and planes and pointy knives. Which is why I ask what special unicorn power drones have that will suddenly make the government start doing so.

It's like talking to a blank wall. It contradicts their paranoid fantasy, and so their eyes glaze over and their brains shut down.

The concern is that drones are used for surveillance as well as state-sanctioned murder. They are a new weapon in the government's arsenal and there is no clear policy on their use.

A resonable person would know that. The fact that it must be explained to you should tell you something.

How is it any different from a helicopter or manned aircraft overflights? And since when did the police need to use force in certain situations become murder?

They are unmanned, as you managerd to comprehend, thus moving the operator one more step away from direct contact. That is how they are different.

Why would you assume that the policy on their use would be the same as anything else? Is the leap from the general to the specific too difficult for you?

Is it merely coincidental that a drone was used to kill American citizens overseas? Using your twisted attempt at logic, we could surmise that it's perfectly alright to kill them over here, too, no?

How is killing American citizens overseas any different than killing them over here?

We know that the Attorney General of the United states has opined that Obama can kill anyone he damned well pleases. Of course, asking for clarity is not allowed by the looney left.

 

[g5000]

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.

This logic sails over the heads of the droners. The federal government could have been killing Americans on US soil all along with tanks and planes and pointy knives. Which is why I ask what special unicorn power drones have that will suddenly make the government start doing so.

It's like talking to a blank wall. It contradicts their paranoid fantasy, and so their eyes glaze over and their brains shut down.

The concern is that drones are used for surveillance as well as state-sanctioned murder. They are a new weapon in the government's arsenal and there is no clear policy on their use.

A resonable person would know that. The fact that it must be explained to you should tell you something.

I see what you did there. Conflating civil surveillance drones with military Predators which carry Hellfire missiles and are used in combat, as if they are one and the same. That would be like conflating a police helicopter with an Army Apache helicopter.

Helicopters have been used domestically for a long time, and yet this has not magically caused the federal government to use Apaches to kill Americans on US soil.

The only differences between a police helicopter and a police drone is one does not carry the pilot onboard and is a lot cheaper.

The fact this must be explained to you should tell you something.

Sorry to provide facts which contradict your paranoid fantasy.