Rand Paul Seemed Almost Sane Last Night

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Libertarianism is lunacy, reactionary and Utopian.

If Bill Maher had asked Rand Paul about minimum wage, Obamacare, or other important issues, I'm sure I would have wanted to pick up that fork and stab someone in the eye.

I also remember Rand Paul saying he was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I want to make very clear, just because I agreed with some of the things he said last night, does not mean I no longer think he's a kook.

It wasn't just that Paul opposes the The Civil Rights Act of 1964, but his 'reasoning' as to why, exhibiting his ignorance of Commerce Clause jurisprudence and why public accommodations laws are in fact necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Otherwise, yes – the libertarian position on foreign policy is the correct position, the rest of their dogma is nonsense.

And opposition to the 'war' on drugs, that our criminal justice system can be inappropriately harsh on minorities, and advocacy of training programs and voting rights for ex-offenders is not exclusively libertarian.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Almost.

Of course it's his ignorance of law and governance that's at issue.

Nothing frightens you more than someone who interprets that Constitution as it is plainly written.

Actually CCJ made a good point. The issues in the OP do not matter if you don't know the laws or how to govern. Anyone can have an opinion.

Good, then I can have mine. My opinion is we need to elect those who favor the Constitution over political correctness and the global initiative. That includes Paul, Perry or anyone else that is running. I can certainly defend Paul's ignorance using the barometer we used to elect the last president. Paul is not an event planner. There ya go.....

My opinion is less ignorant or inconsistent that what we have now isn't good enough. We need to raise our expectations.

Is there a reason you refuse to address the points in the OP? Why bother posting on this thread if you are not willing to do so?

You want me to reiterate his stance? Do you not already know what he stands for? Does he want to secure the borders? Yea, me too. There. I addressed the op. So what. Will that make him a good President? What if he secures our border, but prints money in an out of control fashion?
It is our constitution that is paramount. It controls our borders, it protects our money. It protects it's citizens. Where do our candidates stand on our fundamental rights? It is not what a person believes or does not believe concerning immigration, it is do they intend to uphold our immigration laws that is important.
Loon, less of a loon than, only moderately loony when compared to....., is a piss poor way to elect a President.
What I am saying is we can no longer afford to elect a president on his degree of lunacy. That is what got us where we are today. Bush x2, Clinton, Obama, all global initative supporters. Let's elect an American constitution supporter next.......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rand Paul vs Liz Warren, Rand wins 55 maybe 56 states

 

[Carla_Danger]

Rand Paul vs Liz Warren, Rand wins 55 maybe 56 states

Never underestimate the stupidity of this country, right?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Almost.

Of course it's his ignorance of law and governance that's at issue.

Nothing frightens you more than someone who interprets that Constitution as it is plainly written.

Actually CCJ made a good point. The issues in the OP do not matter if you don't know the laws or how to govern. Anyone can have an opinion.

Good, then I can have mine. My opinion is we need to elect those who favor the Constitution over political correctness and the global initiative. That includes Paul, Perry or anyone else that is running. I can certainly defend Paul's ignorance using the barometer we used to elect the last president. Paul is not an event planner. There ya go.....

My opinion is less ignorant or inconsistent that what we have now isn't good enough. We need to raise our expectations.

Is there a reason you refuse to address the points in the OP? Why bother posting on this thread if you are not willing to do so?

You want me to reiterate his stance? Do you not already know what he stands for? Does he want to secure the borders? Yea, me too. There. I addressed the op. So what. Will that make him a good President? What if he secures our border, but prints money in an out of control fashion?
It is our constitution that is paramount. It controls our borders, it protects our money. It protects it's citizens. Where do our candidates stand on our fundamental rights? It is not what a person believes or does not believe concerning immigration, it is do they intend to uphold our immigration laws that is important.
Loon, less of a loon than, only moderately loony when compared to....., is a piss poor way to elect a President.
What I am saying is we can no longer afford to elect a president on his degree of lunacy. That is what got us where we are today. Bush x2, Clinton, Obama, all global initative supporters. Let's elect an American constitution supporter next.......

You still have not addressed the OP, which is all I was asking. I'm just curious to know what you RW extremists have to say about Rand's stance on the war on drugs, training prisoners. letting felons vote, and not sending more troops to Iraq. That's all.

Here....here's the video of last nights performance. Maybe this will help you address the topic.

 

[The Irish Ram]

When the Indians elected a chief, they remained an integral part of his decision making process. To them, he was just a man, with some good decisions, some bad. The constitution affords us the same opportunity. So, as to your questions, approve, approve, disapprove, and not sure. I will vote for the candidate who is the most passionate about the rights and freedoms of American citizens and the least anxious to change those fundamental rights.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Libertarianism is lunacy, reactionary and Utopian.

If Bill Maher had asked Rand Paul about minimum wage, Obamacare, or other important issues, I'm sure I would have wanted to pick up that fork and stab someone in the eye.

I also remember Rand Paul saying he was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I want to make very clear, just because I agreed with some of the things he said last night, does not mean I no longer think he's a kook.

It wasn't just that Paul opposes the The Civil Rights Act of 1964, but his 'reasoning' as to why, exhibiting his ignorance of Commerce Clause jurisprudence and why public accommodations laws are in fact necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

Otherwise, yes – the libertarian position on foreign policy is the correct position, the rest of their dogma is nonsense.

And opposition to the 'war' on drugs, that our criminal justice system can be inappropriately harsh on minorities, and advocacy of training programs and voting rights for ex-offenders is not exclusively libertarian.

I've never actually heard a libertarian oppose the new voter ID laws, or advocate for training programs in prisons.

 

[Carla_Danger]

When the Indians elected a chief, they remained an integral part of his decision making process. To them, he was just a man, with some good decisions, some bad. The constitution affords us the same opportunity. So, as to your questions, approve, approve, disapprove, and not sure. I will vote for the candidate who is the most passionate about the rights and freedoms of American citizens and the least anxious to change those fundamental rights.

Thanks for playing.

 

[The Irish Ram]

When a lefty extremist says, "Let's be on the right side of History. Let's elect a woman for President." A right winger will say,
"Don't vote for the bitch." What the rest of us need to say is, "Is the woman more loyal to America or to a global governance?"
Then vote for America.

 

[The Irish Ram]

poor teatard....
should the non-existence of santa claus, the easter bunny and faeries be proven as well.
no one needs to prove a negative. you need to prove an asserted fact.
you believe... that's fine. but it's faith.
no hypocrisy on the part of those who don't believe.
poor dear.

"Did you shoot you neighbor last night"?
"No"
"Prove that negative".

Proving that God exists isn't proving a negative. You can't see the wind, but that doesn't make wind a negative. You can still prove it exists even if it is invisible.
Prophesy proves God exists. The supernatural numerical codes used by those who penned God's word exist. A record of Christ's return exists. The Jews considered it a legal truth if two or more substantiate testimony. Three men testified to seeing Christ's return with those whom Christ salvaged from Abraham's bosom. Two of those who returned with Christ gave separate legal testimony regarding the incident and their own personal return from death. The proof exists for those who have ears to hear.

Nonsense.

What theists subjectively perceive is not 'proof.' It merely demonstrates that theists participate in a shared delusion.

But they're happy in their delusion. I've never encountered a happy atheist yet. They're all miserable. If they're wrong, all that happens to them is that they lie down and go to sleep. On the other hand, if you're wrong, you're going to lie down and go to sleep and be awakened. You will die twice. Allow them their delusion. They will allow your reawakening.

Well I'm not an atheist, but those I know are perfectly happy, unlike the angry theists I know.

But no problem, you're allowed your delusions. Just don't try to impose them on normal people.

When the Indians elected a chief, they remained an integral part of his decision making process. To them, he was just a man, with some good decisions, some bad. The constitution affords us the same opportunity. So, as to your questions, approve, approve, disapprove, and not sure. I will vote for the candidate who is the most passionate about the rights and freedoms of American citizens and the least anxious to change those fundamental rights.

Thanks for playing.

Thanks for needing direction.

 

[SteadyMercury]

If Ron Paul had been elected president in 2000, we would never have had the Iraq mess. We would never have had the housing meltdown, because he would never have allowed Greenspan to keep rates at 50 year lows for 4 years. The country would never have descended into the worst financial crisis in half a century, and a generation of Americans would not have lost their homes and jobs and futures.

and if Ron Paul had been elected we'd all be happily riding around on unicorns that shat chocolate covered rainbows, there would be salmon jumping out of streams onto dinner plates, suicides would drop to 0%, and Carrot Top would mysteriously disappear never to be heard from again.

If Ron Paul were elected it would end all bullying, and there would be money trees growing along the banks of fudge lake. Goth chicks would walk in the sunshine without getting burned, fad diets would actually work more than 6 months, and all those warnings about binge drinking would be corrected to say no more than 30 drinks in one day.

If Ron Paul were elected dogs would love cats, and cats would love dogs. Gummi bears would have new flavors, steaks would always turn out perfect, you'd no longer see people park in handicap spots then trot into stores, and the Arizona Cardinals would win the superbowl on 83 yeard a kickoff return with no time remaining.

 

[SteadyMercury]

when he talks about economics I want to pick up a fork and stab someone in the eye.

Yep, there are plenty of cringeworthy videos out there of Ron Paul lecturing about how we were about to experience collapse of the dollar and hyperinflation. His bets on gold and bear have crushed his personal portfolio.

 

[Carla_Danger]

When a lefty extremist says, "Let's be on the right side of History. Let's elect a woman for President." A right winger will say,
"Don't vote for the bitch." What the rest of us need to say is, "Is the woman more loyal to America or to a global governance?"
Then vote for America.

Wowza, more useless blabber.

 

[Carla_Danger]

If Ron Paul had been elected president in 2000, we would never have had the Iraq mess. We would never have had the housing meltdown, because he would never have allowed Greenspan to keep rates at 50 year lows for 4 years. The country would never have descended into the worst financial crisis in half a century, and a generation of Americans would not have lost their homes and jobs and futures.

and if Ron Paul had been elected we'd all be happily riding around on unicorns that shat chocolate covered rainbows, there would be salmon jumping out of streams onto dinner plates and suicides would drop to 0%.

Hehe, that was pretty funny.

 

[Camp]

He seems to have gotten control of his hairdo. It no longer looks like he is wearing a dead animal on his head. Perhaps it is part of the all around make over.

 

[Carla_Danger]

He seems to have gotten control of his hairdo. It no longer looks like he is wearing a dead animal on his head. Perhaps it is part of the all around make over.

I know. Last time I saw him, he looked like an Eddie Haskell look-alike.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let me take a detour to Rand Paul's father.

If Ron Paul had been elected president in 2000, we would never have had the Iraq mess. We would never have had the housing meltdown, because he would never have allowed Greenspan to keep rates at 50 year lows for 4 years. The country would never have descended into the worst financial crisis in half a century, and a generation of Americans would not have lost their homes and jobs and futures.

I disagree strongly with both Ron and Rand Paul on many issues, but they are far better than many of the politicians on both sides of the aisle.

Unfounded nonsense.

A president doesn't have that sort of power, authority, or control over the economy, or much of anything else, for that matter, in spite of the partisan hyperbole from the right.

And make no mistake about it, Rand Paul is very much an establishment, partisan politician, firmly planted on the right side of the aisle; his role in the republican government shutdown is evidence of that.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

LOL it always amuses me to see morons like CCJ and Carla Dung pontificate on whether someone is qualified to be POTUS or not.

 

[aaronleland]

Rand Paul vs Liz Warren, Rand wins 55 maybe 56 states

Are you saying Warren might win the state of The District of Columbia?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rand Paul might sound like an appealing candidate to independents, swing voters, some Democrats, etc.

Just remember, if he were elected president, he'd be at the mercy of the mainstream GOP. He'd revert to the mean in a matter of moments.