"The Trouble with Rand Paul"

[thanatos144]

That last sentence shows you to be nothing more than a Hannity-parrot.

I have no idea why republicans think gov't officials are incapable of making mistakes in foreign policy.

What it shows is that I actually listen to what he said instead of drooling over the idea of legal pot.

I've never touched pot in my life, but since everyone who supports Paul is a pothead according to your list of Hannity's talking points, you ignore reality and stick with the brainless, baseless talking points.

Any small gov't conservative would want pot legalized. Tyranny lovers get off on the idea of gov't regulating what plants people grow, regulating what's in the air they breath in, and regulating what people do in the privacy of their own homes.

Have a good one, I can see you're far too deep into the standard idiot Hannity statist neocon agenda to ever be able to see reality.

You know what? Good for you. Fine everything I said to you is false....What fucking ever. I am tired of fighting with the Paul zombies over a man who will NEVER be elected. Believe what you want and ignore all the evidence I frankly could care less. Now can we get back to discussing the topic and not Ron Paul?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Interesting, and surprising, historical fact: Murray Rothbard endorsed George Bush in 1992.

As often happens, my current quandary was put best by my old friend, Prof. Ralph Raico. He was an ardent Buchananite, but as the horrible nomination of "Slick Willie" loomed, he began to admonish me, in his hilarious mocking half-serious tone: "Remember Murray, we must do nothing to harm the President." When the Perot phenomenon hit, Raico, for some unaccountable reason, failed to share my enthusiasm for the little punk from East Texas. After the Great Betrayal, I was ranting and raving over the phone to Raico, who took it all in, and then concluded: "I'm glad to see you're working your way back to the President."

Yes, gulp, I'm down to the grim, realistic choice: Which of two sets of bozos is going to rule us in 1993-1997?

No one has been more critical of George Bush than I, but yes, dammit, I am working my way back to the President. What? "Four More Years?" Yes, there is only one rational answer for the conservative, the libertarian, or indeed any sensible American.

COLUMN RIGHT/ MURRAY N. ROTHBARD : Hold Back the Hordes for 4 More Years : Any sensible American has one real choice--George Bush. - Los Angeles Times

 

[LibertyForAll]

You give me two links.....One talking about something that happened in 2004 ....Was Obama President then? Cause I never said I didn't think Bush did it cause I do believe he did send terrorist to other countries to get their just desserts I said Obama is to much a pussy to do it. The other sight is a Progressive blog........Um ....Not sure that's the most reliable site since it does nothing in the article but state opinion.

Now for the Newt link .....Most of it is his historical opinion and You might not like it but that doesn't mean he didn't do more for the conservative cause than ANY of the other candidates thus he has proven by his ACTIONS to be conservative not just the shit they spout....Lets talk liberal shall we when Ron Paul is left of the President in Foreign affairs ???

Atta boy, just dismiss what's presented you by putting a label on the source, much more convenient than addressing truths that go against your agenda.

2009 he supports an individual mandate, then Obamacare comes out and all of a sudden Newt flip flops on a stance he's held his entire career. You can pretend he's doing this because of principle and not partisanship, but common sense would lead you to understand the truth.

Obama has the same foreign policy views as Bush, blow up and ask questions later all the while putting U.N. treaties and regulations before the Constitution. Ron Paul is against both, he has a crazy idea of following the Constitution and simply having Congress declare war when we want to go to war.

That's the main reason why reps and dems hate Ron Paul, because he respects the Constitution.

There was no proof in the progressive article it was opinion of a progressive blogger....It was about Bush anyway.

He already admitted to being wrong about the individual mandate Thats called having honor to admit when he is wrong. I am sad that you don't see that.

LOL Yes admittedly Obama did not turn out to be the coward he said he would be when running for election....How about this... Paul is left of the Presidents rhetoric that he used in the election....

The main reason reps hate Ron Paul is he is a dishonest asshole who thinks we are the cause of 9-11

If I walk up to your wife/boyfriend and call them a name and you deck me am I not partially to blame? Those people clearly had issues with us and even though they were evil and wrong for what they did we have to understand that we do not live in a world where we can do whatever we want without repercussions. This is what grown ups do.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Yeah....Politics.

Isn't politics as usual that got to where we are now?

Yep and that's why we cannot let the R's get control of our money OR our Constitution.

The control of our money and Constitution was usurped about 100 years ago under the watchful eye of your favorite progressive President, Woodrow Wilson.

Idjit!

 

[thanatos144]

Atta boy, just dismiss what's presented you by putting a label on the source, much more convenient than addressing truths that go against your agenda.

2009 he supports an individual mandate, then Obamacare comes out and all of a sudden Newt flip flops on a stance he's held his entire career. You can pretend he's doing this because of principle and not partisanship, but common sense would lead you to understand the truth.

Obama has the same foreign policy views as Bush, blow up and ask questions later all the while putting U.N. treaties and regulations before the Constitution. Ron Paul is against both, he has a crazy idea of following the Constitution and simply having Congress declare war when we want to go to war.

That's the main reason why reps and dems hate Ron Paul, because he respects the Constitution.

There was no proof in the progressive article it was opinion of a progressive blogger....It was about Bush anyway.

He already admitted to being wrong about the individual mandate Thats called having honor to admit when he is wrong. I am sad that you don't see that.

LOL Yes admittedly Obama did not turn out to be the coward he said he would be when running for election....How about this... Paul is left of the Presidents rhetoric that he used in the election....

The main reason reps hate Ron Paul is he is a dishonest asshole who thinks we are the cause of 9-11

If I walk up to your wife/boyfriend and call them a name and you deck me am I not partially to blame? Those people clearly had issues with us and even though they were evil and wrong for what they did we have to understand that we do not live in a world where we can do whatever we want without repercussions. This is what grown ups do.

Only the ignorant thinks ignoring things makes them go away.

 

[dblack]

Now can we get back to discussing the topic and not Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is the topic: "The Trouble with Rand Paul".

If it wasn't for Ron Paul, Rand Paul likely wouldn't even be in office. And even if he was, no one would care who he endorsed. He'd be just another two-faced politician. The problem with Rand's endorsement of Romney is that, whether you agree or not - whether true or not, his father is perceived to be largely above that kind of hypocrisy. And a large portion of Rand Paul's support comes from people who expect the same kind of integrity from him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah....Politics.

Isn't politics as usual that got to where we are now?

Yep and that's why we cannot let the R's get control of our money OR our Constitution.

60+ years of democrats in control of the money should tell you who has fucked this country up.

 

[thanatos144]

Now can we get back to discussing the topic and not Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is the topic: "The Trouble with Rand Paul".

If it wasn't for Ron Paul, Rand Paul likely wouldn't even be in office. And even if he was, no one would care who he endorsed. He'd be just another two-faced politician. The problem with Rand's endorsement of Romney is that, whether you agree or not - whether true or not, his father is perceived to be largely above that kind of hypocrisy. And a large portion of Rand Paul's support comes from people who expect the same kind of integrity from him.

So Rand is a just a mindless puppet of his father?

 

[dblack]

Now can we get back to discussing the topic and not Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is the topic: "The Trouble with Rand Paul".

If it wasn't for Ron Paul, Rand Paul likely wouldn't even be in office. And even if he was, no one would care who he endorsed. He'd be just another two-faced politician. The problem with Rand's endorsement of Romney is that, whether you agree or not - whether true or not, his father is perceived to be largely above that kind of hypocrisy. And a large portion of Rand Paul's support comes from people who expect the same kind of integrity from him.

So Rand is a just a mindless puppet of his father?

No... trying reading my post again. Perhaps more slowly.

 

[thanatos144]

Ron Paul is the topic: "The Trouble with Rand Paul".

If it wasn't for Ron Paul, Rand Paul likely wouldn't even be in office. And even if he was, no one would care who he endorsed. He'd be just another two-faced politician. The problem with Rand's endorsement of Romney is that, whether you agree or not - whether true or not, his father is perceived to be largely above that kind of hypocrisy. And a large portion of Rand Paul's support comes from people who expect the same kind of integrity from him.

So Rand is a just a mindless puppet of his father?

No... trying reading my post again. Perhaps more slowly.

I just did and ether you are saying Rand only does as his father says or you are to stupid to know they are different people....Which is it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So Rand is a just a mindless puppet of his father?

No... trying reading my post again. Perhaps more slowly.

I just did and ether you are saying Rand only does as his father says or you are to stupid to know they are different people....Which is it?

Or you're once again displaying your lack of reading comprehension.

 

[dblack]

So Rand is a just a mindless puppet of his father?

No... trying reading my post again. Perhaps more slowly.

I just did and ether you are saying Rand only does as his father says or you are to stupid to know they are different people....Which is it?

Nope. You're just guessing, aren't you?

Keep trying, you'll get it.

 

[thanatos144]

No... trying reading my post again. Perhaps more slowly.

I just did and ether you are saying Rand only does as his father says or you are to stupid to know they are different people....Which is it?

Nope. You're just guessing, aren't you?

Keep trying, you'll get it.

So what you are saying is you Hope he is a puppet cause if not you cant continue masturbating to things a Paul says....Okay I get you think Rand is stupid and wouldn't have been elected if it wasn't for his father.....With supporters like you why would he need enemies?

 

[dblack]

I just did and ether you are saying Rand only does as his father says or you are to stupid to know they are different people....Which is it?

Nope. You're just guessing, aren't you?

Keep trying, you'll get it.

So what you are saying is you Hope he is a puppet cause if not you cant continue masturbating to things a Paul says....Okay I get you think Rand is stupid and wouldn't have been elected if it wasn't for his father.....With supporters like you why would he need enemies?

Hmm... You're getting colder. You want a hint?

 

[thanatos144]

Nope. You're just guessing, aren't you?

Keep trying, you'll get it.

So what you are saying is you Hope he is a puppet cause if not you cant continue masturbating to things a Paul says....Okay I get you think Rand is stupid and wouldn't have been elected if it wasn't for his father.....With supporters like you why would he need enemies?

Hmm... You're getting colder. You want a hint?

I already know you are lost I dont need a hint for that.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I just did and ether you are saying Rand only does as his father says or you are to stupid to know they are different people....Which is it?

Nope. You're just guessing, aren't you?

Keep trying, you'll get it.

So what you are saying is you Hope he is a puppet cause if not you cant continue masturbating to things a Paul says....Okay I get you think Rand is stupid and wouldn't have been elected if it wasn't for his father.....With supporters like you why would he need enemies?

I think you don't really understand what's going on here. This is not a cult of personality. When Ron Paul retires the movement continues on. If Rand proves himself to us then he gets our vote. We won't just vote for him because Ron or anyone else wants us to. Ron Paul didn't create us he just tapped into a culture that was already there. He is one of the few honest and principled men in DC so he gave us hope for real change and we had the same hope for his son. Rand is only as good as his last vote though and thats something he should keep in mind. He better have solid reasons for everything he votes on or his cred will evaporate and we will find a new face.

 

[thanatos144]

Nope. You're just guessing, aren't you?

Keep trying, you'll get it.

So what you are saying is you Hope he is a puppet cause if not you cant continue masturbating to things a Paul says....Okay I get you think Rand is stupid and wouldn't have been elected if it wasn't for his father.....With supporters like you why would he need enemies?

I think you don't really understand what's going on here. This is not a cult of personality. When Ron Paul retires the movement continues on. If Rand proves himself to us then he gets our vote. We won't just vote for him because Ron or anyone else wants us to. Ron Paul didn't create us he just tapped into a culture that was already there. He is one of the few honest and principled men in DC so he gave us hope for real change and we had the same hope for his son. Rand is only as good as his last vote though and thats something he should keep in mind. He better have solid reasons for everything he votes on or his cred will evaporate and we will find a new face.

What bull shit. All rand has to do is say America was at fault for 9-11 and that Pot should be legal and all you zombies will be drooling after him LOL

 

[dblack]

Nope. You're just guessing, aren't you?

Keep trying, you'll get it.

So what you are saying is you Hope he is a puppet cause if not you cant continue masturbating to things a Paul says....Okay I get you think Rand is stupid and wouldn't have been elected if it wasn't for his father.....With supporters like you why would he need enemies?

Hmm... You're getting colder. You want a hint?

Oh heck. I'll give you a break. Let's try again. Once more, from the start:

Ron Paul is the topic: "The Trouble with Rand Paul".

Here I'm saying that, despite your claim to the contrary, Ron Paul is very much on topic. Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney wouldn't be a big deal if not for his father.

If it wasn't for Ron Paul, Rand Paul likely wouldn't even be in office.

Rand's chances for victory were greatly enhanced because of the notoriety of his dad, and the "inheritance" of his supporters. He probably wouldn't have run otherwise, and if he did almost certainly wouldn't have won.

And even if he was, no one would care who he endorsed. He'd be just another two-faced politician.

Pretty straightforward here. Most of us are used to the idea that politicians lie for expedience.

The problem with Rand's endorsement of Romney is that, whether you agree or not - whether true or not, his father is perceived to be largely above that kind of hypocrisy. And a large portion of Rand Paul's support comes from people who expect the same kind of integrity from him.

What I'm saying here is that a large chunk of Rand Paul's support comes from supporters of his father and, for good or bad, their expectations are based on Ron Paul's principles and style. Rand is making a risky gamble in turning away from the candor and unwillingness to equivocate attributed to his father. It might not pay off.

Then again it might. What he gains in the way of mainstream support from voters (and more importantly the political establishment), who are more comfortable with slick politicking and empty promises, may more than offset the loss of his fathers 'fringe' supporters. We'll see.

 

[thanatos144]

So what you are saying is you Hope he is a puppet cause if not you cant continue masturbating to things a Paul says....Okay I get you think Rand is stupid and wouldn't have been elected if it wasn't for his father.....With supporters like you why would he need enemies?

Hmm... You're getting colder. You want a hint?

Oh heck. I'll give you a break. Let's try again. Once more, from the start:



Here I'm saying that, despite your claim to the contrary, Ron Paul is very much on topic. Rand Paul's endorsement of Romney wouldn't be a big deal if not for his father.



Rand's chances for victory were greatly enhanced because of the notoriety of his dad, and the "inheritance" of his supporters. He probably wouldn't have run otherwise, and if he did almost certainly wouldn't have won.

And even if he was, no one would care who he endorsed. He'd be just another two-faced politician.

Pretty straightforward here. Most of us are used to the idea that politicians lie for expedience.

The problem with Rand's endorsement of Romney is that, whether you agree or not - whether true or not, his father is perceived to be largely above that kind of hypocrisy. And a large portion of Rand Paul's support comes from people who expect the same kind of integrity from him.

What I'm saying here is that a large chunk of Rand Paul's support comes from supporters of his father and, for good or bad, their expectations are based on Ron Paul's principles and style. Rand is making a risky gamble in turning away from the candor and unwillingness to equivocate attributed to his father. It might not pay off.

Then again it might. What he gains in the way of mainstream support from voters (and more importantly the political establishment), who are more comfortable with slick politicking and empty promises, may more than offset the loss of his fathers 'fringe' supporters. We'll see.

Now here is something I really want to know....What will you zombies do when Ron Paul endorses Romney at the Convention??????If you dont think he will you really need to put down the bong cause Paul helped Romney win the Nomination. Why else would he spend so much attacking the conservatives in the race yet leave Romney almost unscathed?

Probably to much for your zombie mind to process but hope springs eternal.

 

[dblack]

Now here is something I really want to know....What will you zombies do when Ron Paul endorses Romney at the Convention??????If you dont think he will you really need to put down the bong cause Paul helped Romney win the Nomination. Why else would he spend so much attacking the conservatives in the race yet leave Romney almost unscathed?

Probably to much for your zombie mind to process but hope springs eternal.

The scenario you paint is certainly possible. If that happens, I'll cease and desist supporting the Pauls (and likely Campaign for Liberty, unless serious changes in leadership happen). That's about all I guess.

What would you do if Romney pushes for legalizing pot or comes out as a peacenik? The horror!