Who else is excited for Rand Paul's presidency?

[mex]

Yeah, 3 more Obama-appointed Supreme Court justices ... that would do wonders for the nation .....

that ain't no shit. sometimes I wonder about people like the OP who think it's gonna be better for all of us to swirl down the drain....

While I'm terrified at what would likely be the result of 4 more years of obama in the oval office, it would likely ensure that my lifetime will never see another Progressive President.

it would ensure you'd never have a constitutional scotus in your lifetime.

 

[mex]

The free market of society enacted and enforced Jim Crow.

Nonsense. How does a free market impose Jim Crow laws on people? Pretty sure you need a government for that.

because the free market is evil and unfair!

 

[mex]

The free market of society enacted and enforced Jim Crow.

Nonsense. How does a free market impose Jim Crow laws on people? Pretty sure you need a government for that.

I'm not talking the economic free market even though it was involved in punishing businesses that did not toe the line on Jim Crow as much as the social free market that enforced the rules on both blacks and whites

uh... how is a free market not 'economic'? that's the stupidest post I have ever read in this entire forum.

Seriously.

That takes some doing.

 

[mex]

Nonsense. How does a free market impose Jim Crow laws on people? Pretty sure you need a government for that.

I'm not talking the economic free market even though it was involved in punishing businesses that did not toe the line on Jim Crow as much as the social free market that enforced the rules on both blacks and whites

What is a 'social' free market???

 

[Paulie]

I am. I only hope Romney doesnt fuck things up so bad that the country elects another Democrat. Really an Obama reelection might be in the best long term interest of the nation.

He'd certainly be better than Romney or Obama by far, but he's been less than impressive lately.

Dude I would run so fast to the polling place and vote for Rand tomorrow. At this point I would welcome him with a red carpet.

And you know I don't just roll over like that.

That's how bad shit is right now.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am. I only hope Romney doesnt fuck things up so bad that the country elects another Democrat. Really an Obama reelection might be in the best long term interest of the nation.

He'd certainly be better than Romney or Obama by far, but he's been less than impressive lately.

Dude I would run so fast to the polling place and vote for Rand tomorrow. At this point I would welcome him with a red carpet.

And you know I don't just roll over like that.

That's how bad shit is right now.

I can't say I'd vote for Rand right now. The sanctions on Iran, the aviation school ban for foreigners, and the half-measures on government regulations makes it highly unlikely.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I would too if he had a chance. The reality is that a pure true libertarian is not gonna win ever unless we progress in that direction.

 

[dblack]

He'd certainly be better than Romney or Obama by far, but he's been less than impressive lately.

Dude I would run so fast to the polling place and vote for Rand tomorrow. At this point I would welcome him with a red carpet.

And you know I don't just roll over like that.

That's how bad shit is right now.

I can't say I'd vote for Rand right now. The sanctions on Iran, the aviation school ban for foreigners, and the half-measures on government regulations makes it highly unlikely.

Yeah. He hasn't impressed me yet. That's possibly not fair, because I'd probably be quite happy to hear any other senators raising some of the issues he's raised. But I think he's missing something crucial.

I suppose I understand why he believes he needs to 'play ball' for the time being. His dad 'suffered', ignored and practically irrelevant for most of his political career, specifically because he would not play along. But in the end, it was his greatest strength, and allowed him to parlay his 'benchwarmer' role in congress into a significant political faction, both in and outside of the Republican Party.

That's the spirit Rand needs to inherit from his father if he hopes to be a force for liberty in the Senate, or even running for president. Actually, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to see him running for president. Certainly not in 2016. I'd like to see him prove himself first.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Dude I would run so fast to the polling place and vote for Rand tomorrow. At this point I would welcome him with a red carpet.

And you know I don't just roll over like that.

That's how bad shit is right now.

I can't say I'd vote for Rand right now. The sanctions on Iran, the aviation school ban for foreigners, and the half-measures on government regulations makes it highly unlikely.

Yeah. He hasn't impressed me yet. That's possibly not fair, because I'd probably be quite happy to hear any other senators raising some of the issues he's raised. But I think he's missing something crucial.

I suppose I understand why he believes he needs to 'play ball' for the time being. His dad 'suffered', ignored and practically irrelevant for most of his political career, specifically because he would not play along. But in the end, it was his greatest strength, and allowed him to parlay his 'benchwarmer' role in congress into a significant political faction, both in and outside of the Republican Party.

That's the spirit Rand needs to inherit from his father if he hopes to be a force for liberty in the Senate, or even running for president. Actually, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to see him running for president. Certainly not in 2016. I'd like to see him prove himself first.

I think he's already proven himself. Proven himself to be a statist. Less of a statist than Romney or Obama, but a statist nonetheless.

 

[House]

Ron Paul is like Batman. He was the politician America needs, but not the politician America wants.

Rand is trying to be both, and I don't think that's really possible. You can't cure a cancer that you've integrated yourself into and become a part of.

 

[JakeStarkey]

With constitutional rights protected?

You don't have the "right" to be a community outside of the body politics.

Sheer madness on your part.

Tell me how taking money from me against my will is not theft and I'll vote for Obama and donate extra to your unemployment this year.

It's not theft unless you can prove that it is not legitimate for people to come together and form a government,

that then becomes the legitimate authority over those people.

Yep.. The tyranny of the majority is acceptable, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The great majority laugh at the silliness adolescence of the LLs.

 

[rightwinger]

Even I will give credit to Ron Paul. I admire the man. His son has big shoes to fill.

You need a smackdown.

Tell us what a bad man he is. By all means. I can't wait.

Bad man?

I don't think he beats his wife. But there is no question that his policies are bad. Opposing Civil Rights because you want to protect the rights of racist businessmen, opposing programs that help the poor, opposing environmental protections

Does that make you a bad man? Yes it does

Horseshit. disagreeing with algore's radical policies doesn't mean he wants all of us to drink filthy water, and not supporting Affirmative action doesn't mean he's a racist.

that bad old constitution... please lawdy lawdy... protect us from them evil white founders!

Rand Paul has nothing to do with the Constitution. He is an outsider looking in. Our Constitution established an Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branch to ensure that the rights of all Americans are protected.
Rand Paul and his father have a childlike interpretation of our government and it shows in their simplistic interpretations of what makes a modern democracy function

 

[rightwinger]

Well, if you are okay with oppressing some people for the *possibility* of helping others I can't do anything for you

No "possibility" about it

Blacks have been helped immensely by Civil Rights legislation. If the Government stepping in and saying "You may no longer oppress blacks" is oppressing those who enforced Jim Crow for100 years....so be it

For the Pauls to believe therwise shows why they are unfit

dude, you got stung on that one. why don't you show some humility and acknowledge it?

Actually, Rand Paul got stung on that one

His statement that he would not have supported Civil Rights will ensure that he will never get elected President.......EVER

 

[Paulie]

Dude I would run so fast to the polling place and vote for Rand tomorrow. At this point I would welcome him with a red carpet.

And you know I don't just roll over like that.

That's how bad shit is right now.

I can't say I'd vote for Rand right now. The sanctions on Iran, the aviation school ban for foreigners, and the half-measures on government regulations makes it highly unlikely.

Yeah. He hasn't impressed me yet. That's possibly not fair, because I'd probably be quite happy to hear any other senators raising some of the issues he's raised. But I think he's missing something crucial.

I suppose I understand why he believes he needs to 'play ball' for the time being. His dad 'suffered', ignored and practically irrelevant for most of his political career, specifically because he would not play along. But in the end, it was his greatest strength, and allowed him to parlay his 'benchwarmer' role in congress into a significant political faction, both in and outside of the Republican Party.

That's the spirit Rand needs to inherit from his father if he hopes to be a force for liberty in the Senate, or even running for president. Actually, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to see him running for president. Certainly not in 2016. I'd like to see him prove himself first.

The problem though is that it only culminated in a civil movement, but barely resulted in anything significant being done politically. Ron's biggest political claim to fame is the Fed audit, which still wasn't much of anything anyway.

At some point in time someone needs to do something to get a seat at the table, and for all we know that's what Rand is doing.

What if Rand went against sanctions for Iran? Does that get him any closer to a seat at the table?

I'm all for someone beating these guys at their own game. And if that takes doing a few things that would seem on the surface as "against" what we believe in, then so be it.

Do we want anything to change or not?

 

[dblack]

The great majority laugh at the silliness adolescence of the LLs.

Gee. I didn't know. I feel so foolish now.

 

[SniperFire]

The great majority laugh at the silliness adolescence of the LLs.

Gee. I didn't know. I feel so foolish now.

But it is true.

It is why you don't support your own 1% candidates and you spend your time leg-humping Republicans hoping they someday win election then declare themselves Libertarian.

LOL

 

[dblack]

The problem though is that it only culminated in a civil movement, but barely resulted in anything significant being done politically.

But that's what we need. Political gains will follow widespread acceptance of the ideas. Winning key offices wouldn't hurt I suppose (actually, the wrong person in the wrong position could hurt quite a lot) but it won't matter until the public - the cackling majority - gets behind libertarian ideas.. This is especially the case with views that radically challenge the status quo. RPs great accomplishment has been calling out the hypocrisy of the Republican party on the whole. Part of the reason Romney will lose is because of this effort.

At some point in time someone needs to do something to get a seat at the table, and for all we know that's what Rand is doing.

Sure, I understand the motivation. But I think in doing that, he loses his ability to speak out and raise awareness and that's far more important. We've seen this already. Rand had a tremendous opportunity to say what everyone already knows - Romney is just another corporatist stooge with very little conviction concerning conservative values and tangible animosity to the libertarian cause. But, instead, he towed the party line sacrificing his own integrity in the process.

Breaking ranks with the herd is what Ron Paul did right. If Rand wants to be 'our man on the inside', more power to him. I guess I just think it's too early for that. And I suspect he'll simply get lost in a sea of political entanglements and tradeoffs that leave him ineffective as a main stream legislator and unconvincing as a critical outsider.

 

[Liberal]

The ONLY thing I could even care about Rand would be his outlook towards the legalization of cannabis.

But, I am sure he will filp-flop on that as soon as Rove/Koch step into the mix.

 

[Contumacious]

More Libertarian hogwash

We are more free today than in any time in our history. We have our judicial system to thank for that.

More socialist hogwash. You define "free" how .......Orwellian Terms, of course.

.

Well, let's look at the record

At the time of our founding, blacks were slaves, Indians weren't citizens, women couldn't vote, non landowners couldn't vote........not what I would call free

By 1865, slaves were free but denied equal treatment, Indians were still being hunted, women had no vote......still not exactly free

By the 1920s, women received the vote, blacks had fewer freedoms than 1865, workers had no rights.........still a long way from freedom

By the 1950s, workers had full rights, women could vote but were excluded from most career paths, gays were openly beaten, blacks were subjected to government sanctioned domestic terrorism.......far from what I would consider free

By the 1980s, almost all jobs were open to women and minorities, gays were allowed to come out in the open.........now we were approaching freedom

Today, we have a black man as President, women have greater representation in most careers and the military, gays can openly serve in the military and can marry in almost a quarter of the states.......Yes, we are much more free today

Identify by Article , Section and Clause the Federal Constitution (1787) provisos which

1- mandated slavery

2-prevented women from voting

3-prevented women from choosing their own career paths

4- penalize homosexuals

5- prevented blacks from becoming president

As a matter of fact the dissenting opinion in "Dred Scott v. Sanford" reminded RACIST supreme Court Chief Justice Taney that their was no legal basis for the majority opinion. But people like you choose to believe that the US Supreme Court can be trusted to support the Constitution and our rights.


.