# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Rand Paul: I'm Not a libertarian...

## Icymudpuppy

http://libertycrier.com/politics/ran...and-smoke-pot/

Jeez, Rand, way to throw us under the bus...


Rand Paul: Im Not A Libertarian  Im Not Advocating Everyone Run Around With No Clothes On And Smoke Pot

May 14, 2013

in Front Page, Philosophy, Politics
Post image for Rand Paul: Im Not A Libertarian  Im Not Advocating Everyone Run Around With No Clothes On And Smoke Pot

Earlier this spring, Sen. Rand Paul and his wife, Kelley, invited a crew from the Christian Broadcasting Network into their Kentucky home for what turned into two full days of reality TV. In a half-hour special, At Home With Rand Paul, the couple are seen bird-watching in the woods, going to McDonalds and, especially, talking about religion  their belief in traditional marriage and the senators call for a spiritual cleansing in America.

The show was an unusual moment for Paul, who has gained fame as a live-and-let-live tea-party hero closely aligned with the libertarian movement inspired by his father, former representative Ron Paul (R-Tex.)  and not as a social conservative

Im not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot, he said. Im not a libertarian. Im a libertarian Republican. Im a constitutional conservative.

The rollout of the new Paul brand continued Friday night in Iowa, home to the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses, where he headlined a sold-out Republican Party dinner and drew repeated applause from GOP activists

Rand Paul: Im Not A Libertarian  Im Not Advocating Everyone Run Around With No Clothes On And Smoke Pot. [full story]

rand-paul-libertarian

----------


## Warlord

Shock, he tells pastors who need winning over he's not a libertarian.  Yes we know he's not going to run as a libertarian.

He has said this maybe a dozen times even as far back as 2009

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Rand Paul: I'm Not a libertarian...


Another reason, barring currently unforeseen circumstances, I'm supporting Rand Paul for President in 2016, should he choose to run.

----------


## Matt Collins

rhetoric vs voting record

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Look, instead of correcting them on what libertarians are and explaining the difference between libertarian, and libertine, he just reinforced the incorrect stereotype.

----------


## Warlord

> rhetoric vs voting record


This tells you a lot:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...s-Reading-List

----------


## thoughtomator

wink, wink

----------


## Warlord

> Look, instead of correcting them on what libertarians are and explaining the difference between libertarian, and libertine, he just reinforced the incorrect stereotype.


His job is not to educate it's to win votes.

Educating them is unlikely to have any benefits.  He's not a libertarian crusader he's looking to be president and there's no time to waste.

----------


## puppetmaster

good

----------


## Warlord

Also saying he's not a 'Libertarian' is technically true. He's not a member of the Libertarian Party (unless they gave him a life membership).

----------


## PatriotOne

> "I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”


Shades of grey.  Ends up I'm probably closer to Rand than to Ron.  I sure didn't throw Ron under the bus every chance I got because of it.  I knew Ron was as good as it got for me without me running for President myself.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Who said anything about big "L".

What bothers me is that he perpetuated a false stereotype that libertarians advocate irresponsibility.

If he had said "I'm not a libertarian" and left it at that, no problems here.  It's the assertion that libertarian equals nudist pot smokers that bothers me.

----------


## fr33

I'm not a republican.

----------


## PatriotOne

> Who said anything about big "L".
> 
> What bothers me is that he perpetuated a false stereotype that libertarians advocate irresponsibility.
> 
> If he had said "I'm not a libertarian" and left it at that, no problems here.  It's the assertion that libertarian equals nudist pot smokers that bothers me.


I think he was implying he's not an "extreme" libertarian which would advocate/support nudity and pot smoking.  Though I can understand why a not so extreme libertarian might take offense.  Then again an extreme libertarian would take offense at you not supporting a nude pot smoker...lol.

----------


## MRoCkEd

It should be clear by now that Rand is not a pure libertarian. He is what he says he is, a constitutional conservative with strong libertarian leanings.

He's the best candidate we are going to have in a long time who believes in smaller government and has a shot at the White House. I fully support him.

----------


## Warlord

> Who said anything about big "L".
> 
> What bothers me is that he perpetuated a false stereotype that libertarians advocate irresponsibility.
> 
> If he had said "I'm not a libertarian" and left it at that, no problems here.  It's the assertion that libertarian equals nudist pot smokers that bothers me.


How do you know he didn't mean he's not a member of the LP?

"I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a Republican".

This is true for anyone who is in fact a libertarian and member of the GOP. They're not members of the LP but are Republicans

----------


## compromise

> Im a libertarian Republican. Im a constitutional conservative.


I think he was just saying he's not part of the Libertarian Party. There are a lot of libertines in the LP, so his point is fair.

----------


## KingRobbStark

> How do you know he didn't mean he's not a member of the LP?
> 
> "I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a Republican".
> 
> This is true for anyone who is in fact a libertarian and member of the GOP. They're not members of the LP but are Republicans


When People Use The Term They Mean The Ideology Not The Party. Adding The Word "Party" Would Then Refer To The Libertarian Party. (My Phone Capitalizes Every Word For Some Reason. Sorry About That, It Must Be Annoying.)

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Look, instead of correcting them on what libertarians are and explaining the difference between libertarian, and libertine, he just reinforced the incorrect stereotype.


Yeah. That was a $#@!ty move Rand.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

I'm not a Muslim.  I don't advocate strapping bombs on little girls, and blowing up school buses.

----------


## Warlord

> When People Use The Term They Mean The Ideology Not The Party. Adding The Word "Party" Would Then Refer To The Libertarian Party. (My Phone Capitalizes Every Word For Some Reason. Sorry About That, It Must Be Annoying.)


How do you know though? He wasn't explicit. You could quite conceivably say "I'm not a Libertarian i'm a Republican" as meaning i'm a member of the GOP not the LP.

----------


## Warlord

> Yeah. That was a $#@!ty move Rand.


Winning over a room full of pastors in Iowa is more important than pleasing those who don't know what he's trying to do.   These people tend to complain about whatever he says and picks apart his every statement (like the OP is doing).

He's not there to correct them he's there to win their vote. He will say whatever he has to say to win their vote.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Another reason, barring currently unforeseen circumstances, I'm supporting Rand Paul for President in 2016, should he choose to run.


I support Rand Paul as well, but what's your problem with libertarians?

I don't know what Rand believes in his heart, but Rand Paul is not running as a libertarian, but as a constitutional conservative.  That's OK, anything is better than a foaming at the mouth neo-progressive, and Rand Paul is WAY better than those.

Ron Paul, on the other hand, did run as a libertarian.  He didn't usually use that term, but that was always the ideology that he believed in  Granted, he wasn't an *anarchist* (Which, neither am I) but anarcho-capitalism is only a subset of libertarianism.




> Who said anything about big "L".
> 
> What bothers me is that he perpetuated a false stereotype that libertarians advocate irresponsibility.
> 
> If he had said "I'm not a libertarian" and left it at that, no problems here.  It's the assertion that libertarian equals nudist pot smokers that bothers me.


You could even make the case, perhaps, that on "Public" property a no nudist policy is an acceptable policy for said property, even while the State is usurping control of said property.  I'm not screaming for nudists to be arrested, but it is possible to control that on public property.

He's technically talking about immigration here, but I think Stephan Kinsella makes a valid point about the nature of public property, and how, if we can't win the battle of ultimate privatization, libertarians should think of state property at the link below:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella18.html




> I think he was implying he's not an "extreme" libertarian which would advocate/support nudity and pot smoking.  Though I can understand why a not so extreme libertarian might take offense.  Then again an extreme libertarian would take offense at you not supporting a nude pot smoker...lol.


You can be as extreme a libertarian as you want to be and still oppose that type of behavior.  An anarcho-capitalist can absolutely think that smoking pot is a bad idea.  You can also be completely NOT a libertarian and support that type of behavior.  All libertarians support the legalization (Not the same thing as the use) of pot, and all libertarians would supporrt your right to be nude on your own personal property, but not all people who support those things are necessarily libertarians.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I'm not a Muslim.  I don't advocate strapping bombs on little girls, and blowing up school buses.


Perfect Rand impression sir!

----------


## awake

I give him full points on this. He says he isn't a libertarian then he isn't. Much respect. Everyone wishing that he be his dad or something he is not, re-read his statement.

I have said this many times: he is a conservative. Many like to think he is playing sleeper or sly fox, but I tend to take him as he says he is.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

I'm not a republican.  I don't advocate endless warfare, and deficit spending.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Winning over a room full of pastors in Iowa is more important than pleasing those who don't know what he's trying to do.   These people tend to complain about whatever he says and picks apart his every statement (like the OP is doing).
> 
> He's not there to correct them he's there to win their vote. He will say whatever he has to say to win their vote.



He sounds like a neocon zombie. He doesn't deserve anyone's vote talking like that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Ron Paul was never a Republican either.  Honestly, neither is Rand, although he can't say that.  Rand's platform is much closer to some kind of Constitution Party-Libertarian Party hybrid than it is anything resembling "Republican."

The GOP is just terrible, and that I KNOW Rand Paul knows regardless of what he  says.  He may really think they are better than the Democrats (Which I don't agree with, I think they're all the same except for the liberty minded candidates who snuck in, but I know some people here do still prefer the Republicans) but he still knows they suck.

----------


## compromise

> I give him full points on this. He says he isn't a libertarian then he isn't. Much respect. Everyone wishing that he be his dad or something he is not, re-read his statement.
> 
> I have said this many times: he is a conservative. Many like to think he is playing sleeper or sly fox, but I tend to take him as he says he is.


Read closely - he says he's a "libertarian Republican". This topic title is very misleading and make it look like Rand's renounced libertarianism.

----------


## compromise

> He sounds like a neocon zombie. He doesn't deserve anyone's vote talking like that.


Please remind me what exactly about that was neoconservative? Do you even know the definition of neoconservative?

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Compromise- His quote should probably read "I'm not a *L*ibertarian, I'm a *l*ibertarian Republican."  Even still, Rand Paul really isn't a libertarian, or at least not publicly.  A conservative, yeah, I could even go for "libertarian leaning conservative", but not a true libertarian.  My "libertarian" tent is pretty big but even I don't have room for somebody who would punish clearly victimless behavior like pot use with any kind of punishment.  "I'll leave it to the states" is sufficient that I'd be comfortable to put him in the White House, but anyone who is really a libertarian would oppose the state level laws too* (Note that that is NOT the same thing as saying he would use the Federal government to change the bad state laws.)

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Please remind me what exactly about that was neoconservative? Do you even know the definition of neoconservative?


I do actually, so:

Edit: He sounds like a Fox News zombie.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Look, I'm still on the Randwagon, but people close to him should remind him that these kind of comments are not cool.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Rand, based on what he actually said, is a (moderate) interverventionist, but not a neocon.

----------


## Brett85

> Look, instead of correcting them on what libertarians are and explaining the difference between libertarian, and libertine, he just reinforced the incorrect stereotype.


Be prepared to get attacked by those who believe that it's wrong to ever criticize Rand for anything.  Those of us who support Rand but yet want to hold his feet to the fire on issues like this are pretty rare on this forum.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Ugh...Thanks Rand.  Great way to sell the message of liberty...

Ron spent his political life trying to teach people that freedom and Christian values were compatible, and here we have Rand reinforcing the view that freedom and Christian values are incompatible.  This actually kind of makes me angry.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Look, instead of correcting them on what libertarians are and explaining the difference between libertarian, and libertine, he just reinforced the incorrect stereotype.


You have to understand that his supporters here will defend anything he says or does....and I mean *anything*.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Rand Paul: Im Not A Libertarian  Im Not Advocating Everyone Run Around With No Clothes On And Smoke Pot


Seems like he's talking about some activism that's happened in Keene, New Hampshire. I doubt most of those folks would consider themselves libertarians, either. They even moved on and stopped doing the topless thing. Topless Tuesdays ended in 2010 or 2011. Actually, it only happened a few times. 
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...less-tuesdays/

----------


## Brett85

> It should be clear by now that Rand is not a pure libertarian. He is what he says he is, a constitutional conservative with strong libertarian leanings.
> 
> He's the best candidate we are going to have in a long time who believes in smaller government and has a shot at the White House. I fully support him.


I personally think that he probably is close to a pure libertarian secretly, but just believes that he has to change his positions in order to win.  I've read comments from people who said that they asked Rand about the drug war before he was ever in the Senate, and he said he was 100% against it.  So I think it's more likely than not that Rand feels like he has to change his position in order to get elected.  I just don't agree with that strategy, at least not entirely, because it opens him to getting the "flip flopper" label.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Be prepared to get attacked by those who believe that it's wrong to ever criticize Rand for anything.  Those of us who support Rand but yet want to hold his feet to the fire on issues like this are pretty rare on this forum.


I'm one of them




> Ugh...Thanks Rand.  Great way to sell the message of liberty...
> 
> Ron spent his political life trying to teach people that freedom and Christian values were compatible, and here we have Rand reinforcing the view that freedom and Christian values are incompatible.  This actually kind of makes me angry.


It is annoying, yes.



> You have to understand that his supporters here will defend anything he says or does....and I mean *anything*.


Yeah, some will...  I won't...

----------


## Brett85

> You have to understand that his supporters here will defend anything he says or does....and I mean *anything*.


Yeah, and if you criticize him for *anything,* then you're a "Rand hater."  I'm someone who still plans on supporting him for President in 2016, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with holding his feet to the fire on certain issues.  It would be bad if there was only criticism of Rand, but it's also bad if there's never any criticism of him.

----------


## wizardwatson

He's a politician so even if he said he was a libertarian you can't believe him just like you have no way to believe him when he says he isn't.  That's the difference between Ron and Rand.

This is what we signed up for folks.  Let's not act surprised.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Who said anything about big "L".
> 
> What bothers me is that he perpetuated a false stereotype that libertarians advocate irresponsibility.
> 
> If he had said "I'm not a libertarian" and left it at that, no problems here.  It's the assertion that libertarian equals nudist pot smokers that bothers me.


*^^THIS.*

----------


## cajuncocoa

> "They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian* and hang that label around my neck like an albatross*, but I'm not a libertarian,"



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...#ixzz2TJK5DCI2

----------


## Warlord

Do labels matter?

If he keeps saying im not a libertarian and wins the trust of Iowa pastors and wins the caucus then mission accomplished.

He's not a crusader he's a vote winning machine. I think he knows what he's doing.

----------


## erowe1

He didn't throw anyone under the bus.

Why should he call himself a libertarian? That wouldn't do him any good. Plus, he isn't one.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> He didn't throw anyone under the bus.
> 
> Why should he call himself a libertarian? That wouldn't do him any good. Plus, he isn't one.


He threw us under the bus by making the statement that libertarians are a bunch of nudist potheads.  I don't care what he labels himself, but I absolutely take offense at him labeling me.

----------


## Brett85

> He didn't throw anyone under the bus.
> 
> Why should he call himself a libertarian? That wouldn't do him any good. Plus, he isn't one.


That's fine, but as a Constitutional Conservative he should realize that it's unconstitutional to ban drugs at the federal level and should publicly support completely repealing the federal war on drugs.

Except for perhaps preventing drugs from flowing into the country.  That needs to still occur until the states decide to legalize drugs.  That's the only part of the drug war that I view as being Constitutional.

----------


## fr33

> He didn't throw anyone under the bus.
> 
> Why should he call himself a libertarian? That wouldn't do him any good. Plus, he isn't one.


Most people seem to not have a problem with his label but with his negative stereotype applied to libertarians. 

I'm not a republican because I'm not a fat old white racist who hates women. See how that works?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's fine, but as a Constitutional Conservative he should realize that it's unconstitutional to ban drugs at the federal level and should publicly support completely repealing the federal war on drugs.
> 
> Except for perhaps preventing drugs from flowing into the country.  That needs to still occur until the states decide to legalize drugs.  That's the only part of the drug war that I view as being Constitutional.


How is that even constitutional?

As far as I'm concerned if a state wants to keep drugs out they should do it themselves.

(Note that I'm not in favor of states banning drugs either.)

----------


## Warlord

> That's fine, but as a Constitutional Conservative he should realize that it's unconstitutional to ban drugs at the federal level and should publicly support completely repealing the federal war on drugs.
> 
> Except for perhaps preventing drugs from flowing into the country.  That needs to still occur until the states decide to legalize drugs.  That's the only part of the drug war that I view as being Constitutional.


He isn't proposing to ban drugs. In fact he has fought congress banning drugs like bath salts. Congress will continue to ban drugs and guess what, they get to override the president if they have enough numbers.  He doesn't have to enforce it though as he would run the Justice Dept

----------


## Brett85

> How is that even constitutional?
> 
> As far as I'm concerned if a state wants to keep drugs out they should do it themselves.
> 
> (Note that I'm not in favor of states banning drugs either.)


I view border security as being Constitutional, and what I'm talking about is basically just border security, preventing drug cartels from coming into the country illegally.  The Constitution gives the federal government the authority to "repel invasions," and I view border security as part of "providing for the common defense."  The Constitution also mentions "naturalization," which is basically just another word for "immigration."

----------


## erowe1

I still don't see the problem.

If a libertarian is a nudist pothead, then I'm glad Rand isn't one. I'm not one either. Neither are most of you. And most of those of you who are don't feel like the rest of us need to be.

The label is an albatross, just like he said. And that's because of the way people take it to mean exactly what he said.

If Rand had said, "I'm not a libertarian. I'm not for cutting the welfare-warfare state," now that would be a problem.

----------


## Brett85

> He isn't proposing to ban drugs. In fact he has fought congress banning drugs like bath salts. Congress will continue to ban drugs and guess what, they get to override the president if they have enough numbers.  He doesn't have to enforce it though as he would run the Justice Dept


Yeah I know, which is why I think he's probably just not being completely truthful to these social conservatives in Iowa.  Some may think that the ends justify the means, but I personally don't like that strategy.  I would like him to be more straightforward.  I'm not saying he should come out and say "Heroine should be legal."  I'm just saying that I wish he would more consistently advocate a states' rights position on the drug war, even to these so called "social conservative leaders" in Iowa.

----------


## green73

> Look, I'm still on the Randwagon, but people close to him should remind him that these kind of comments are not cool.


It's the people close to him, advising, that I want to know more about.

----------


## devil21

> He threw us under the bus by making the statement that libertarians are a bunch of nudist potheads.  I don't care what he labels himself, but I absolutely take offense at him labeling me.


I don't have a problem with his comments.  Sounds like he's front-running the inevitable "pot smoking hippy!" attacks that are surely coming in the near future from potential 2016 opponents and their supporters.  Heck, I get called such drivel on other forums just because I don't support top-down gov't control of everything.  It's hyperbole meant to character assassinate while avoiding actual issues and positions.  I don't have a problem with Rand's statement.  I don't think he was calling libertarians "nudist potheads" (not that there's anything wrong with nudist potheads lol), rather just blunting that obvious line of attack that surely is coming.

eta:  Is there any video to confirm these comments were even made, in context and accurately?  Im always wary of the media just making $#@! up as a last ditch effort to attack Rand's growing popularity.

----------


## erowe1

> That's fine, but as a Constitutional Conservative he should realize that it's unconstitutional to ban drugs at the federal level and should publicly support completely repealing the federal war on drugs.
> 
> Except for perhaps preventing drugs from flowing into the country.  That needs to still occur until the states decide to legalize drugs.  That's the only part of the drug war that I view as being Constitutional.


I get that part. And there are already threads about that. This thread is for whining about him making the obviously smart choice of distancing himself from the libertarian label.

----------


## Warlord

> Yeah I know, which is why I think he's probably just not being completely truthful to these social conservatives in Iowa.  Some may think that the ends justify the means, but I personally don't like that strategy.  I would like him to be more straightforward.  I'm not saying he should come out and say "Heroine should be legal."  I'm just saying that I wish he would more consistently advocate a states' rights position on the drug war, even to these so called "social conservative leaders" in Iowa.


He has no obligation to be straightforward.  He needs to use his words carefully and if you have to lie to seize power then so be it.  He's never lied though as far as I know. You can be clever with your words and Rand is very clever.

----------


## supermario21

Don't forget, Gary Johnson ran around as the "Libertarian" candidate promoting the pot issue while wearing peace t-shirts. Believe it or not, to your average Republican primary voter or even independent voter, a libertarian is a kook that just worries about pot. I'm far more interested in substantive change to promote liberty. Yes, I disagree with Rand about marijuana, but I'm not kicking him off the boat because I may disagree with him slightly.

----------


## TheTexan

Doesn't matter how well you "play the game", national politics is irreparably broken.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> He threw us under the bus by making the statement that libertarians are a bunch of nudist potheads.  I don't care what he labels himself, but I absolutely take offense at him labeling me.





> Most people seem to not have a problem with his label but with his negative stereotype applied to libertarians. 
> 
> I'm not a republican because I'm not a fat old white racist who hates women. See how that works?


^^^ These ^^^

Almost anything else is just "blah, blah, blah" (notice I said, Almost, so TC, Cajun, etc...not pointed at)

----------


## Brett85

> Don't forget, Gary Johnson ran around as the "Libertarian" candidate promoting the pot issue while wearing peace t-shirts. Believe it or not, to your average Republican primary voter or even independent voter.


The last poll I saw showed that 60% of independents support legalizing marijuana, which was a higher number than the support among Democrats.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, I disagree with Rand about marijuana, *but I'm not kicking him off the boat because I may disagree with him slightly.*


Me either.  I'm just publicly criticizing his position and hoping that he takes a more liberty-oriented position in the future.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I still don't see the problem.
> 
> If a libertarian is a nudist pothead, then I'm glad Rand isn't one. I'm not one either. Neither are most of you. And most of those of you who are don't feel like the rest of us need to be.
> 
> The label is an albatross, just like he said. And that's because of the way people take it to mean exactly what he said.
> 
> If Rand had said, "I'm not a libertarian. I'm not for cutting the welfare-warfare state," now that would be a problem.

----------


## FrankRep

> Jeez, Rand, way to throw us under the bus...


I'm a Constitutionalist, not a Libertarian.

----------


## supermario21

> The last poll I saw showed that 60% of independents support legalizing marijuana, which was a higher number than the support among Democrats.


I agree with you 100%, but I think it's the perception that's more negative rather than the message. Personally I wish states were rushing to legalize marijuana faster than gay marriage.

----------


## FrankRep

> He sounds like a neocon zombie. He doesn't deserve anyone's vote talking like that.


Wow. Are you calling Rand Paul a Neocon?? 

lol, dude.

----------


## Warlord

> 


It's just rhetoric that's his point. 

For most of us we dont get hung up on his words and politicking as long as he's committed to shrinking the state.

However for some others (bored people on the internet) they like to pick apart and read something into every sentence of every statement of everything he ever utters.

----------


## TheTexan

It really wasn't necessary to insult libertarians like that.  That's not "playing the game", that's "burning bridges"

----------


## Warlord

> It really wasn't necessary to insult libertarians like that.  That's not "playing the game", that's "burning bridges"


The people who are insulted by this are the kind of people who vote LP in Amash's district.  He's never, ever going to please them.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Me either.  I'm just publicly criticizing his position and hoping that he takes a more liberty-oriented position in the future.


I actually think the freedom to put what you want in your body as a responsible adult is a pretty darn serious freedom.  Granted, its not the biggest issue, but it is a big issue, IMO.

"Small issues" are things like gay marriage where no freedom is really directly at stake, or issues like immigration where libertarians disagree with each other anyway.  But being able to lock someone in a cage for putting something in their body is a big issue.




> I view border security as being Constitutional, and what I'm talking about is basically just border security, preventing drug cartels from coming into the country illegally.  The Constitution gives the federal government the authority to "repel invasions," and I view border security as part of "providing for the common defense."  The Constitution also mentions "naturalization," which is basically just another word for "immigration."


I'm pretty sure its possible to trade without breaking immigration laws.  I'm mostly laissez faire on immigration as far as it goes, but I also don't really care about that peripheral issue right now, and the Feds can control immigration constitutionally speaking. But I do not see "Stopping drugs from coming into the country" as a Federal issue.



> Yeah I know, which is why I think he's probably just not being completely truthful to these social conservatives in Iowa.  Some may think that the ends justify the means, but I personally don't like that strategy.  I would like him to be more straightforward.  I'm not saying he should come out and say "Heroine should be legal."  I'm just saying that I wish he would more consistently advocate a states' rights position on the drug war, even to these so called "social conservative leaders" in Iowa.


He should, and he should be for legalizing heroin as well.  That's frankly just common sense.  Nobody should go to jail for what they choose to ingest into their body.  I'm sure the son of Ron Paul understands this as well, whether he rejects it or is just a good liar, he can't claim ignorance considering who his dad is.  My parents aren't nearly as liberty oriented as Ron Paul and I figured it out




> Don't forget, Gary Johnson ran around as the "Libertarian" candidate promoting the pot issue while wearing peace t-shirts. Believe it or not, to your average Republican primary voter or even independent voter, a libertarian is a kook that just worries about pot. I'm far more interested in substantive change to promote liberty. Yes, I disagree with Rand about marijuana, but I'm not kicking him off the boat because I may disagree with him slightly.


I liked Gary (Although he's disappointing me a bit lately) but admittedly he did have more of that "libertine" attitude.  Ron Paul clearly does not but he's still perfectly clear about what liberty is and that it includes the right to choose what you want to put into your body.

----------


## devil21

> He should, and he should be for legalizing heroin as well.  That's frankly just common sense.  Nobody should go to jail for what they choose to ingest into their body.  I'm sure the son of Ron Paul understands this as well, whether he rejects it or is just a good liar, he can't claim ignorance considering who his dad is.  My parents aren't nearly as liberty oriented as Ron Paul and I figured it out


You sure about that?  Ron has always advocated ending the federal drug war and leaving legality up to the states.  He never advocated legalizing any particular substance on the state level.  The closest he has come to that is the Greenville SC debate in 2011 (which I attended) and even then his rhetoric was that just because something is legal doesn't mean people will flock to using it.  He has never once said that any controlled substance should be legalized for mass use.  Are you sure you know anything about Ron Paul's past statements?

----------


## FrankRep

> He should, and he should be for legalizing heroin as well.


That is political suicide and you know it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You sure about that?  Ron has always advocated ending the federal drug war and leaving legality up to the states.  He never advocated legalizing any particular substance on the state level.  The closest he has come to that is the Greenville SC debate in 2011 (which I attended) and even then his rhetoric was that just because something is legal doesn't mean people will flock to using it.  He has never once said that any controlled substance should be legalized for mass use.  Are you sure you know anything about Ron Paul's past statements?


In that Greenville debate he clearly implied it.  He was also asked at one point whether prostitution and heroin legalization was an exercise of "Freedom" and while he did stumble on the question a bit (Completely understandable, simply answering "Yes" would have unjustifiably led the soundbite world to believe he was condoning the use of those substances) he ultimately answered in the affirmative.

He doesn't talk about it quite that way because its frankly not his job to.  A Presidential candidate CANNOT constitutionally force any state to legalize anything, nor should they.  That doesn't change the fact that the RIGHT thing to do is to legalize it.  So far, Ron Paul has been correct on this, while Rand Paul has been wrong.




> That is political suicide and you know it.


I'm not a utilitarian, so I don't care

----------


## Brett85

> I agree with you 100%, but I think it's the perception that's more negative rather than the message. Personally I wish states were rushing to legalize marijuana faster than gay marriage.


The only reason why they're not is because Democratic state legislators support gay marriage but not marijuana legalization.  Among the American people support for gay marriage and legalizing marijuana is about the same percentage.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Rand Paul threw all libertarians under the bus with that statement. 

*$#@! RAND PAUL*

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> You have to understand that his supporters here will defend anything he says or does....and I mean *anything*.


As opposed to what?  The perpetually-angry, always complaining about something Rand-haters here who hyperventilate every time Rand Paul chooses Coke over Pepsi?

----------


## Brett85

> Rand Paul threw all libertarians under the bus with that statement. 
> 
> *$#@! RAND PAUL*


For those of you who are calling me a "Rand hater" recently, this is what a "Rand hater" post looks like.  I'm always civil and respectful to Rand in my posts, even when I disagree with him.  So please note the difference between the actual "Rand haters" and those of us who are simply trying to hold his feet to the fire on these issues.

----------


## FrankRep

> Rand Paul threw all libertarians under the bus with that statement. 
> 
> *$#@! RAND PAUL*


Libertarians did it to themselves.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The only reason why they're not is because Democratic state legislators support gay marriage but not marijuana legalization.  Among the American people support for gay marriage and legalizing marijuana is about the same percentage.


And that's in spite of politicians at the Federal level doing everything they can to push the gay marriage agenda but to oppose the legalization of marijuana.




> Rand Paul threw all libertarians under the bus with that statement. 
> 
> *$#@! RAND PAUL*





> For those of you who are calling me a "Rand hater" recently, this is what a "Rand hater" post looks like.  I'm always civil and respectful to Rand in my posts, even when I disagree with him.  So please note the difference between the actual "Rand haters" and those of us who are simply trying to hold his feet to the fire on these issues.


LOL!  This.  +1.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Libertarians did it to themselves.


No, we didn't.  Rand Paul made a stupid statement here.  I still support him, yes, but he still made a stupid statement, same with the drone comment.  Then, he's trying to win the REPUBLICAN primary, not the libertarian one, which in and of itself sucks but what are we going to do when the oligarchs force us to choose?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Wow. Are you calling Rand Paul a Neocon?? 
> 
> lol, dude.


1. Check my edit a few posts later

2. I said sounds like, that does not equal calling him one.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> The people who are insulted by this are the kind of people who vote LP in Amash's district.  He's never, ever going to please them.


Is that you Rand?

----------


## erowe1

> 1. Check my edit a few posts later
> 
> 2. I said sounds like, that does not equal calling him one.


What did he say that sounded neocon?

----------


## Christian Liberty

@JFKIII- What's your theory as to why Ron Paul made that comment about Rand: "We are 99% the same on issue"?

Granted, it was clearly an exaggeration, but do you believe Ron Paul flat out and deliberately lied to us?

----------


## FrankRep

> No, we didn't.  Rand Paul made a stupid statement here.  I still support him, yes, but he still made a stupid statement, same with the drone comment.  Then, he's trying to win the REPUBLICAN primary, not the libertarian one, which in and of itself sucks but what are we going to do when the oligarchs force us to choose?


Libertarians get 1% of the vote and running in the Republican primary is a pretty damn good idea. 

Ron Paul was also a Republican and a Congressman. I know that probably pisses you off as well.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> "They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian,"
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...#ixzz2TJK5DCI2


Here's a newsflash: Ron Paul distanced himself from the Libertarian Party in 1996, when he was challenging Laughlin (primary) and Morris (general).  Furthermore, Ron Paul switched parties because he knew full-well he couldn't get back into the U.S. House as a Libertarian.  He then, of course, ran for President two more times, in the GOP primary.

Why didn't Ron Paul stay true to his principles and remain a Libertarian?  Did Ron Paul, gasp, do something politically practical?

Trey Grayson and the national and Kentucky GOP establishment tried to paint Rand Paul as some wacky Libertarian who wanted to legalize meth and supported abortion.  He knows better than to get hung around the neck with the 1-ton anchor that is how Libertarians are perceived by Republican primary voters.  Like it or not, part of that is the Libertarian Party's own doing, by not jettisoning some of their weirdos.

----------


## FrankRep

> What did he say that sounded neocon?


John F Kennedy III is just being silly.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> For those of you who are calling me a "Rand hater" recently, this is what a "Rand hater" post looks like.  I'm always civil and respectful to Rand in my posts, even when I disagree 
> with him.  So please note the difference between the actual "Rand haters" and those of us who are simply trying to hold his feet to the fire on these issues.



Lol. You're funny.

----------


## T.hill

> @JFKIII- What's your theory as to why Ron Paul made that comment about Rand: "We are 99% the same on issue"?
> 
> Granted, it was clearly an exaggeration, but do you believe Ron Paul flat out and deliberately lied to us?


Rand made a stupid comment, I'll agree with ya there.

It wasn't an exaggeration though, I've said it many times myself, Rand and Ron are literally 99% percent the same on issues.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Sounds like it won't be long until a Hannity Forum veteran will feel right at home here.

----------


## erowe1

I don't even agree that it was a stupid comment. I think it was a smart comment. I'm glad he said it. And I hope he keeps saying things like that.

----------


## erowe1

> Sounds like it won't be long until a Hannity Forum veteran will feel right at home here.


And we certainly wouldn't want any of them to support Rand.

----------


## PaleoPaul

Rand and Ron are more on the paleo-con side than the libertarian side, so this doesn't upset me.

----------


## Brett85

> @JFKIII- What's your theory as to why Ron Paul made that comment about Rand: "We are 99% the same on issue"?
> 
> Granted, it was clearly an exaggeration, but do you believe Ron Paul flat out and deliberately lied to us?


I don't.  I think that Rand is probably just lying to these social conservatives in Iowa.  I don't mean that as a personal attack.  I still like Rand personally overall.  But, I think he just thinks that he has to lie or distort his positions in order to win the GOP primary.  I just don't really like that strategy very much.  But, I think it's clear that he supports drug legalization but is completely distorting his position in order to get support from evangelicals in Iowa.  This seems clear when you consider that before Rand ever ran for office, he made a comment on a talk show that only "acts of violence should be a crime," and "things that aren't violent shouldn't be a crime."  That's not the exact same wording as supporting "drug legalization," but it's close.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Here's a newsflash: Ron Paul distanced himself from the Libertarian Party in 1996, when he was challenging Laughlin (primary) and Morris (general).  Furthermore, Ron Paul switched parties because he knew full-well he couldn't get back into the U.S. House as a Libertarian.  He then, of course, ran for President two more times, in the GOP primary.
> *
> Why didn't Ron Paul stay true to his principles and remain a Libertarian?  Did Ron Paul, gasp, do something politically practical?*
> 
> Trey Grayson and the national and Kentucky GOP establishment tried to paint Rand Paul as some wacky Libertarian who wanted to legalize meth and supported abortion.  He knows better than to get hung around the neck with the 1-ton anchor that is how Libertarians are perceived by Republican primary voters.  Like it or not, part of that is the Libertarian Party's own doing, by not jettisoning some of their weirdos.


He's a lifetime member of the LP, FYI.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> It should be clear by now that Rand is not a pure libertarian. He is what he says he is, a constitutional conservative with strong libertarian leanings.


Parse it this way, "I'm not a conservative.  I'm a conservative Republican."

What the $#@! does that mean?

When he says

    Im not a libertarian. Im a libertarian Republican.

Republicans (neocons) hear

   "I'm a libertarian."  And tune him out.

Libertarians (many of the purists) hear

    "I'm not a libertarian".  And tune him out.


This is just an aweful, aweful way to deliver a message.  Perhaps he ought just excise the word "libertarian" from his vocab unless asked specifically about membership in the Libertarian Party.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Sounds like it won't be long until a Hannity Forum veteran will feel right at home here.


Hannity Forums, you say?




(Oh how I wish Rand Paul had been the one to run this ad, just for the reaction.)

----------


## Dogsoldier

The heart of republican is libertarian. The reason why we needed the libertarian party is because the republicans are acting more like democrats then republicans.

The libertarians are the only true 2nd party. If Rand does manage to win and ends up being just another neocon the republicans will never win again because Ron Paul,liberty,libertarians won't trust republicans again. The liberty movement is a force they will half to deal with as we proved it this last election when Romney lost his ass. Rand could just as easily lose his ass too if he goes too far neocon. Rand has a lot on his shoulders.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Libertarians get 1% of the vote and running in the Republican primary is a pretty damn good idea. 
> 
> Ron Paul was also a Republican and a Congressman. I know that probably pisses you off as well.


I guess I wasn't clear enough.  I don't care about party affiliation.  Heck, the Libertarian Party has that stupid pro-abortion platform that pretends to be neutral on the issue (A real neutral position would be something more like "Let the states decide" not "legalize everywhere".)  Ron Paul never agreed with the LP platform on that issue, and neither do I.  I care about principles.  

Rand Paul has a predominately good record, but he falls short on some of the principles.  Which is because he's running for the GOP nomination.  What I said was sad is that he has to compromise on principle to have a chance because the GOP makes him, not that he's in the GOP.

I can't condone compromise on principle, however expedient.  I don't, however, hold it against him.




> Here's a newsflash: Ron Paul distanced himself from the Libertarian Party in 1996, when he was challenging Laughlin (primary) and Morris (general).  Furthermore, Ron Paul switched parties because he knew full-well he couldn't get back into the U.S. House as a Libertarian.  He then, of course, ran for President two more times, in the GOP primary.
> 
> Why didn't Ron Paul stay true to his principles and remain a Libertarian?  Did Ron Paul, gasp, do something politically practical?
> 
> Trey Grayson and the national and Kentucky GOP establishment tried to paint Rand Paul as some wacky Libertarian who wanted to *legalize meth and supported abortion*.  He knows better than to get hung around the neck with the 1-ton anchor that is how Libertarians are perceived by Republican primary voters.  Like it or not, part of that is the Libertarian Party's own doing, by not jettisoning some of their weirdos.


That you even put those two together is insane.  Meth use is still a victimless crime, abortion isn't.  




> Rand made a stupid comment, I'll agree with ya there.
> 
> It wasn't an exaggeration though, I've said it many times myself, Rand and Ron are literally 99% percent the same on issues.


On votes that actually come up, or on principle?  And publicly, or privately?

I guarantee you, when it comes to principle, Rand Paul PUBLICLY agrees with Ron Paul less than 99% of the time.

On votes that actually come up, probably.  (This usually means "Voting against any FURTHER infringements on liberty.)  Privately?  Maybe.  But Rand Paul is not agreeing with Ron Paul 99% of the time publicly on issues of principle.  Granted, that's politically smart of him, but its still true.

----------


## Brett85

> That you even put those two together is insane.  Meth use is still a victimless crime, abortion isn't.


I know.  I hear that all the time from people.  People think that it's weird that I support legalizing drugs but support banning abortion.  I'll never understand what the connection between those two issues is.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> That you even put those two together is insane.  Meth use is still a victimless crime, abortion isn't.


Oh for...

It was Grayson that put those two together, not me.

----------


## wizardwatson

Restating the obvious here:

Rand is a politician.  The definitive behavior of a politician is that you pick sides and play the power game.  This has already been discussed on RPF.  The consensus on Rand is that he is doing what he has to do in order to further the liberty agenda by playing power politics.  You either agree with that or you don't but since he's playing politics you CANNOT sit around and judge him on everything he says.  You have to judge him strictly on votes.  He has sacrificed his personal image and rhetoric in order to vote for liberty in the legislature.

Now my personal take is that the voting is secondary to principled speech.  I take a more holistic view of leadership and that requires right speech and right action.  That's why I consider Ron far more powerful.  

Rand is a jedi like Annaken Skywalker who thinks he can use the power of the dark side to further liberty.  But just like in the story, when you do that your girlfriend dies, your kids go into foster homes, you lose your legs, you get your nuts singed and you end up working for a prick the rest of your life.

But that's my opinion I accept that a large portion of the movement disagrees with me.  However, we will always have to be vigilant even with people who are as good as his supporters think he is.  We will need to be organized to get him elected and organized to watch him and all his strategic copycats after they get elected.

So our problem, which is the same problem we have been ignoring for six years, is how to get organized, understand what people like Rand and others in the movement are doing, and stop having endless arguments over the same $#@! we've been arguing about for years.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand and Ron are more on the paleo-con side than the libertarian side, so this doesn't upset me.


Ron Paul is definitely a libertarian.  Basically the only unlibertarian thing he has ever voted for is the 2001 AUMF, and even then, it was only unlibertarian because of how it was used.  He definitely presents his libertarianism in a "State's rights/constitution" type of way, which makes sense because, as a Federal official, he has no real authority to tell the states what to do anyway.  Granted, Ron Paul definitely COULD say something like "Well, its not the Federal government's job to force the state to change this law, but its still a bad law" but there's no obligation for him to say anything like this, as a Federal official.  He'd really be speaking as a private citizen at that point.  

Granted, there are a few libertarians who do want to "Have their cake and eat it too" and are perfectly fine with pro-liberty legislation WHEREVER it comes from, but most libertarians are fundamentally decentralizationists in most or all circumstances.  For me, until it is replaced with a better document, perhaps the articles  of confederation or something else, I'd much rather the Federal government follow the imperfect constitution than to declare itself to have unlimited power.  Ron Paul has implied that he would be an antifederalist if the constitution were being discussed now, but he doesn't see any point in having this debate right now.

Ideologically, Ron Paul is clearly a libertarian.  Rand?  Probably sometime in the past, but he definitely isn't running as one right now.  I'm glad he's not calling himself one since he isn't running as one (Note that the "libertarian" in this post was SMALL l, I meant libertarian as in the political principle, not the party, Ron Paul ran as a libertarian in the GOP.)  Its the "All libertarians are pot smoking nudists" vibe that I don't like (Yeah, I know Rand Paul doesn't really mean this, he knows his own father after all, but it was still a mind-blowingly idiotic comment.  Maybe it was "Smart" politically to throw us over the bus, but the comment was a total joke and not befitting someone as generally intelligent as Rand Paul regardless of the political gain.)



> I don't.  I think that Rand is probably just lying to these social conservatives in Iowa.  I don't mean that as a personal attack.  I still like Rand personally overall.  But, I think he just thinks that he has to lie or distort his positions in order to win the GOP primary.  I just don't really like that strategy very much.  But, I think it's clear that he supports drug legalization but is completely distorting his position in order to get support from evangelicals in Iowa.  This seems clear when you consider that before Rand ever ran for office, he made a comment on a talk show that only "acts of violence should be a crime," and "things that aren't violent shouldn't be a crime."  That's not the exact same wording as supporting "drug legalization," but it's close.


Hmm... I wonder if that would mean Rand is against IP laws as well?  (Not necessarily a problem, my curiosity was just ignited.)

You may be right, but its also possible that Washington DC is corrupting him.  Never discount that possibility.  Its tempting to ignore because he does so much good, but corruption can be a slow process.  I'm not saying that IS the case, I'm just saying we should automatically assume Rand Paul is immune to it.  Ron Paul only got to the House and he never cared about winning.  Being in the senate and caring about winning create MANY more opportunites to be corrupted.

Stand strong, Rand, and we'll stand with you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *The heart of republican is libertarian.* The reason why we needed the libertarian party is because the republicans are acting more like democrats then republicans.
> 
> The libertarians are the only true 2nd party. If Rand does manage to win and ends up being just another neocon the republicans will never win again because Ron Paul,liberty,libertarians won't trust republicans again. The liberty movement is a force they will half to deal with as we proved it this last election when Romney lost his ass. Rand could just as easily lose his ass too if he goes too far neocon. Rand has a lot on his shoulders.


False.  This myth was started by Reagan, IIRC.  But he said the heart of conservatism is libertarianism.  Libertarianism is a radical "left" movement-essentially a modern incarnation of classical liberalism.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Speaking of methamphetamine:




Oh yeah, Rand Paul should embrace the Libertarian label, so that this ad can be made more effective when it runs in Iowa in late 2015.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ron Paul is definitely a libertarian.  Basically the only unlibertarian thing he has ever voted for is the 2001 AUMF, and even then, it was only unlibertarian because of how it was used.  He definitely presents his libertarianism in a "State's rights/constitution" type of way, which makes sense because, as a Federal official, he has no real authority to tell the states what to do anyway.  Granted, Ron Paul definitely COULD say something like "Well, its not the Federal government's job to force the state to change this law, but its still a bad law" but there's no obligation for him to say anything like this, as a Federal official.  He'd really be speaking as a private citizen at that point.  
> 
> Granted, there are a few libertarians who do want to "Have their cake and eat it too" and are perfectly fine with pro-liberty legislation WHEREVER it comes from, but most libertarians are fundamentally decentralizationists in most or all circumstances.  For me, until it is replaced with a better document, perhaps the articles  of confederation or something else, I'd much rather the Federal government follow the imperfect constitution than to declare itself to have unlimited power.  Ron Paul has implied that he would be an antifederalist if the constitution were being discussed now, but he doesn't see any point in having this debate right now.
> 
> Ideologically, Ron Paul is clearly a libertarian.  Rand?  Probably sometime in the past, but he definitely isn't running as one right now.  I'm glad he's not calling himself one since he isn't running as one (Note that the "libertarian" in this post was SMALL l, I meant libertarian as in the political principle, not the party, Ron Paul ran as a libertarian in the GOP.)  Its the "All libertarians are pot smoking nudists" vibe that I don't like (Yeah, I know Rand Paul doesn't really mean this, he knows his own father after all, but it was still a mind-blowingly idiotic comment.  Maybe it was "Smart" politically to throw us over the bus, but the comment was a total joke and not befitting someone as generally intelligent as Rand Paul regardless of the political gain.)


I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure the GOP inherited their irrational hatred of libertarianism from Ayn Rand-who called libertarians "the hippies of the Right".

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I give him full points on this. He says he isn't a libertarian then he isn't. Much respect. Everyone wishing that he be his dad or something he is not, re-read his statement.


He said he is a "libertarian".  You should re-re-read the statement.  You can't be a conservative republican without being a conservative.  You can't be a libertarian republican without being a libertarian.

*That he also said he is not a libertarian (or Libertarian) is of little relevance.*  He contradicted himself UNLESS it was to be construed as, "I'm not a *L*ibertarian.  I'm a *l*ibertarian *R*epublican."  In which case he is a *l*ibertarian but not a *L*ibertarian.  Fine with me.

Rand didn't make that clear.  Neither did you.

For some form of libertarian/Libertarian, Rand just said he is one.

Clearly, what he said was confusing - what he is... I hope to find out.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> False.  This myth was started by Reagan, IIRC.  But he said the heart of conservatism is libertarianism.  Libertarianism is a radical "left" movement-essentially a modern incarnation of classical liberalism.


Get off it.

----------


## James Madison

> And we certainly wouldn't want any of them to support Rand.


Sean Hannity represents a dying breed of "conservatism" that may have worked back in the '90s, but doesn't stand a chance nationally in 2016 and beyond. Pure demographics. People are getting fed up with the government imposing its version of morality on the public and attaching oneself to him and his cohorts is a sure-fire way to guarantee a defeat come November.

When I think 'Hannity' I think of idiots like Gingrich, Huckabee, Bachman, Santorum, et al. These people are political cancer today, and the problem will only get worse as more of their SS-eligible supporters die.

Criticize Romney all the want, but he was a better candidate than Santorum. Romney may have had the personality of a wet rag and the likeability to match, but he had some cross-over appeal for Moderates and Blue Republicans. The Hannity crowd has zero. None. There wasn't a single non-Evangelical voter that wasn't terrified of a 'true conservative' like Santorum. Same goes for Bachman and Gingrich. And, yes, Hannity.

They liked Ron Paul because he was completely different. Even if they didn't always agree with everything he had to say, in a world of political correctness, minced words, and doublespeak there's something oddly refreshing about a man who doesn't care what others think of him.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Speaking of methamphetamine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, Rand Paul should embrace the Libertarian label, so that this ad can be made more effective when it runs in Iowa in late 2015.


Cheap attack ads are a stupid reason to change one's strategy, policy, label, etc.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Rand seems to make alot of confusing statements these days...

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Sean Hannity represents a dying breed of "conservatism" 
> 
> When I think 'Hannity' I think of idiots like Gingrich, Huckabee, Bachman, Santorum, et al. These people are political cancer today, and the problem will only get worse as more of their SS-eligible supporters die.


Your 2012 GOP presidential primary results:

"Dying breed of conservatism" = 89.11%

Ron Paul: 10.89%




> Cheap attack ads are a stupid reason to change one's strategy, policy, label, etc.


One does not need to change their policy or anything.  All Rand Paul is doing is not embracing a label that he's never described himself by anyway.  Paul is not changing anything, just reiterating it yet again, because some still do not seem to comprehend he's not a Libertarian, even after he ran around saying "I'm not a Libertarian" all throughout 2009 and 2010.

----------


## cajuncocoa

While arguing about the war on drugs, the viability of the Libertarian Party (and other things), I think a lot of people here are missing the point.

As troublesome as it is that he might not support legalization of drugs, what bothers me more is the fact that Rand insulted a large segment of his Dad's supporters as if all libertarians are advocating smoking pot while running around naked. 

And I don't buy that he was speaking of members of the Libertarian Party (not that it would be any better if he was). 

Pretty hypocritical for a man who had to address all of those accusations regarding Aqua Buddha a few years ago. 





> *What bothers me is that he perpetuated a false stereotype that libertarians advocate irresponsibility.*
> 
> If he had said "I'm not a libertarian" and left it at that, no problems here.  It's the assertion that libertarian equals nudist pot smokers that bothers me.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't.  I think that Rand is probably just lying to these social conservatives in Iowa.  I don't mean that as a personal attack.  I still like Rand personally overall.  But, I think he just thinks that he has to lie or distort his positions in order to win the GOP primary.  I just don't really like that strategy very much.  But, I think it's clear that he supports drug legalization but is completely distorting his position in order to get support from evangelicals in Iowa.  This seems clear when you consider that before Rand ever ran for office, he made a comment on a talk show that only "acts of violence should be a crime," and "things that aren't violent shouldn't be a crime."  That's not the exact same wording as supporting "drug legalization," but it's close.


Just noting that I edited a response to this into my previous post.  I accidentally failed to post it the first time.




> I know.  I hear that all the time from people.  People think that it's weird that I support legalizing drugs but support banning abortion.  I'll never understand what the connection between those two issues is.


I don't really get it either.  Most people IRL will understand, even if they disagree, once I explain it, but left-wingers on the internet are usually hopeless.

Part of the problem is that right-wingers in general are hopelessly inconsistent on the issue.  Admittedly, this is something I'm still struggling with myself, I don't quite understand how people can honestly say abortion is murder and then condemn people like Scott Roeder:

The Family Research Council said the following after Tiller's vigilante justice... I'm sorry, the politically correct term is apparently "Assassination"




> We are stunned at today's news. As Christians we pray and look toward the end of all violence and for the saving of souls, not the taking of human life. George Tiller was a man who we publicly sought to stop through legal and peaceful means. We strongly condemn the actions taken today by this vigilante killer and we pray for the Tiller family and for the nation that we might once again be a nation that values all human life, both born and unborn.[54]


First of all, using government laws against abortion is not "Peaceful."  IMO it is justified but it is anything but "Peaceful", or at least not anymore so than Roeder personally taking action against a mass murderer.

The bottom line, for the pro-life movement, should be this... abortion is the killing of a child.  If you believe in the death penalty, that means abortion should be a capital crime, for both "mother" and doctor, assuming sufficient evidence exists.  If you don't, that means abortion should be punished by life imprisonment, or whatever you believe the proper punishment for murder is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassi..._George_Tiller

Practically EVERYBODY calls Scott Roeder a "Murderer."  To me, the man was a freedom fighter.  I'm not condoning actions that will be met with brutal government force, but I am absolutely saying that George Tiller deserved to die.  Admittedly, it is probably wrong to be "Happy" about anyone's death, but this was a participant in genocide.  Nobody other than his family should have cried for him, and certainly not the President of the United States.  Good riddance.

If pro-lifers in general talked more like I do about this issue, maybe it would make some degree of sense.







> Oh for...
> 
> It was Grayson that put those two together, not me.

----------


## devil21

> In that Greenville debate he clearly implied it.  He was also asked at one point whether prostitution and heroin legalization was an exercise of "Freedom" and while he did stumble on the question a bit (Completely understandable, simply answering "Yes" would have unjustifiably led the soundbite world to believe he was condoning the use of those substances) he ultimately answered in the affirmative.
> 
> He doesn't talk about it quite that way because its frankly not his job to.  A Presidential candidate CANNOT constitutionally force any state to legalize anything, nor should they.  That doesn't change the fact that the RIGHT thing to do is to legalize it.  So far, Ron Paul has been correct on this, while Rand Paul has been wrong.


Your interpretation of what he was "implying" does not make it a statement from him.  His position was always removal of the Feds from the equation and leave it up to the states.  If SC decided to legalize heroin, that doesn't mean everyone in the auditorium in Greenville would run out and use heroin.  Your understanding of Ron's position is poor.

----------


## devil21

> Is that you Rand?


Is that you, Kurt Nimmo?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> While arguing about the war on drugs, the viability of the Libertarian Party (and other things), I think a lot of people here are missing the point.
> 
> As troublesome as it is that he might not support legalization of drugs, what bothers me more is the fact that Rand insulted a large segment of his Dad's supporters as if all libertarians are advocating smoking pot while running around naked. 
> 
> And I don't buy that he was speaking of members of the Libertarian Party (not that it would be any better if he was). 
> 
> Pretty hypocritical for a man who had to address all of those accusations regarding Aqua Buddha a few years ago.


THIS!



> Criticize Romney all the want, but he was a better candidate than Santorum. Romney may have had the personality of a wet rag and the likeability to match, but he had some cross-over appeal for Moderates and Blue Republicans. The Hannity crowd has zero. None. There wasn't a single non-Evangelical voter that wasn't terrified of a 'true conservative' like Santorum. Same goes for Bachman and Gingrich. And, yes, Hannity.
> 
> They liked Ron Paul because he was completely different. Even if they didn't always agree with everything he had to say, in a world of political correctness, minced words, and doublespeak there's something oddly refreshing about a man who doesn't care what others think of him.


Yeah, I also think Obama was marginally less bad than Romney.  What's the point?  It doesn't matter.  At least Rand Paul is SOMEWHERE on the liberty scale.  So was Gary Johnson.  But the rest of the not-Ron-Paul candidates from 2012?  Who cares!  They were all hardcore statists.

----------


## James Madison

> Your 2012 GOP presidential primary results:
> 
> "Dying breed of conservatism" = 89.11%
> 
> Ron Paul: 10.89%


In a primary with and attended by 'dying breed of conservatism' conservatives...and Ron Paul + his supporters. Next you'll tell me most Americans are black because they represent the majority of membership in the local Black Student Union. 

Aren't you going to post the national election results as well?

What percentage voted for Ron in '08? 

Deny it all you want, the GOP is hemorrhaging supporters faster than it can create new ones. They're either fed up with the GOP's obsession with gay marriage and social issues or they're dying.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Your interpretation of what he was "implying" does not make it a statement from him.  His position was always removal of the Feds from the equation and leave it up to the states.  If SC decided to legalize heroin, *that doesn't mean everyone in the auditorium in Greenville would run out and use heroin.*  Your understanding of Ron's position is poor.


Well, no duh.  Anyone who isn't a total idiot knows that.  Why would Ron Paul have said it if he didn't believe laws against heroin were a bad idea?

No, he wasn't going to force SC or any other state to legalize heroin.  Nor should he.   As  a Federal official, he can't.  But I have no doubt he would have favored such legislation at the state level.

If that isn't the case, Ron Paul would simply be wrong, IMO, but I don't think he's ever said anything to that effect.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In a primary with and attended by 'dying breed of conservatism' conservatives...and Ron Paul + his supporters. Next you'll tell me most Americans are black because they represent the majority of membership in the local Black Student Union. 
> 
> Aren't you going to post the national election results as well?
> 
> What percentage voted for Ron in '08? 
> 
> Deny it all you want, the GOP is hemorrhaging supporters faster than it can create new ones. They're either fed up with the GOP's obsession with gay marriage and social issues or they're dying.


I, for one, hate how they act like gay marriage is a bigger issue than abortion.  Let alone the military industrial complex.

----------


## James Madison

> THIS!
> 
> 
> Yeah, I also think Obama was marginally less bad than Romney.  What's the point?  It doesn't matter.  At least Rand Paul is SOMEWHERE on the liberty scale.  So was Gary Johnson.  But the rest of the not-Ron-Paul candidates from 2012?  Who cares!  They were all hardcore statists.


I think you missed my point.

For how bad Romney lost the election, running someone from the Hannity/Fox News breed of social conservatives would have been worse.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I know.  I hear that all the time from people.  People think that it's weird that I support legalizing drugs but support banning abortion.  I'll never understand what the connection between those two issues is.


Honestly, the previously mentioned inconsistency with the GOP on abortion (Not just on that particular freedom fighter, but the fact that their claims that they believe abortion is actually murder is a joke) is why I also barely consider it on the Presidential ballot.  Parental permission?  Who cares!  Laws against minors traveling across state lines?  Really just an excuse for police statism, and not constitutional  either.  We need a real personhood movement, not the joke the GOP is giving us.  I ignore this issue at the national level because to them the lives of children are really just a game.  All the while they freak over small time killers like Lanza and pass more police state legislation to "Protect the children" as well.


People who really hate abortion that support the GOP in general are just deceived.  They don't care...

----------


## devil21

> Well, no duh.  Anyone who isn't a total idiot knows that.  Why would Ron Paul have said it if he didn't believe laws against heroin were a bad idea?
> 
> No, he wasn't going to force SC or any other state to legalize heroin.  Nor should he.   As  a Federal official, he can't.  But I have no doubt he would have favored such legislation at the state level.
> 
> If that isn't the case, Ron Paul would simply be wrong, IMO, but I don't think he's ever said anything to that effect.


Maybe you should rewatch the question and answer.  The question was very specific.  His answer was based on the notion that SC would legalize heroin if the federal drug war was ended.

----------


## supermario21

> I, for one, hate how they act like gay marriage is a bigger issue than abortion.  Let alone the military industrial complex.




Agreed. One is murder, the other is people dealing with their private lives. If Evangelicals were smart, they'd push harder on the life issue where we're winning and fighting for religious liberty protections to gay marriage.

----------


## James Madison

> I, for one, hate how they act like gay marriage is a bigger issue than abortion.  Let alone the military industrial complex.





> Agreed. One is murder, the other is people dealing with their private lives. If Evangelicals were smart, they'd push harder on the life issue where we're winning and fighting for religious liberty protections to gay marriage.


In all honesty, they did this to themselves.

They were the biggest supporters of giving the government the "right to define marriage as betwen a man and a woman". What they really did was give government the "right to define marriage" and assumed those of similar opinion would always be the majority. Oops.

----------


## supermario21

> In all honesty, they did this to themselves.
> 
> They were the biggest supporters of giving the government the "right to define marriage as betwen a man and a woman". What they really did was give government the "right to define marriage" and assumed those of similar opinion would always be the majority. Oops.


They're still pushing it. In the SC01 runoff between Sanford and Bostic, Sanford said the government shouldn't be involved in defining marriage and said it's a religious issue more than anything else, while Bostic said that was wrong and a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is needed. Even in the South it's not a winning position unless you're talking about the state defining marriage, not the federal government.

----------


## Christian Liberty

OK, at the 1:40-1:50 mark he says it.  He says that heroin use is an "Exercise of liberty."  How you can draw from that that he supports a heroin ban at any level?  

Again, he's running for President, a Federal level office.  In that office, he has no right to tell South Carolina, or any other state, what to do.  Realizing this, he runs on a campaign that involves leaving the states alone.  But if you pay attention, you can tell that Ron clearly implies that he isn't happy with prohibition at any level.

I'm almost certain he's been even more clear in one of his LRC articles but I'd have to search for it and I'm not going to do that right now.

Granted, Ron Paul still did make a mistake, IMO.  I think he's wrong on libel.  I don't see any justification for a law against that, either in the 1st amendment, or in  libertarian thinking.  I believe Walter Block was correct not to sue Loyola University of Maryland for libel, even though they clearly did commit libel, because the libel laws are not compatible libertarianism.  On the drug issue, however, Ron Paul seems to be pretty clearly supporting personal liberty.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In all honesty, they did this to themselves.
> 
> They were the biggest supporters of giving the government the "right to define marriage as betwen a man and a woman". What they really did was give government the "right to define marriage" and assumed those of similar opinion would always be the majority. Oops.


Well, you can't put Evangelicals all in one group.  I'm an Evangelical, and I wasn't even alive when most of this crap happened.  And while I obviously didn't know everything as a child, at 18 years old I've already pretty much held the viewpoint that this issue (Gay marriage) is a joke for at least a year and a half now.

----------


## Brett85

> Speaking of methamphetamine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, Rand Paul should embrace the Libertarian label, so that this ad can be made more effective when it runs in Iowa in late 2015.


Two words:  *"states' rights."*  That's all Rand needs to say regarding this issue.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think you missed my point.
> 
> For how bad Romney lost the election, running someone from the Hannity/Fox News breed of social conservatives would have been worse.


OK, I missed it, and yes you're probably correct.  Most "Independents" lean more conservative on fiscal issues, and more liberal on social issues.  I haven't seen a whole lot of that being the other way around.

I've NEVER met someone who's said "You know, I really like the Republicans on social issues, but on fiscal issues they just don't support enough government intervention."  Granted, they exist.  I've read Carl Trueman's "Republocrat" (And basically, I hated the guys individual ideas but I was at least happy for another person who's an Evangelical and not mindlessly a Republican). But there aren't a whole lot of them.  I've seen PLENTY of young people who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal (Although I clearly don't fit in that category.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Two words:  *"states' rights."*  That's all Rand needs to say regarding this issue.


I'd be OK with that, but he won't even say that

----------


## devil21

> OK, at the 1:40-1:50 mark he says it.  He says that heroin use is an "Exercise of liberty."  How you can draw from that that he supports a heroin ban at any level?


An exercise in liberty from federal regulation.  Also note he said "I probably never used those words" so you're actually quoting Chris Wallace, not Ron Paul.

----------


## phill4paul

> “I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot, “I’m not a libertarian.”


  $#@! you Rand.

----------


## James Madison

> Well, you can't put Evangelicals all in one group.  I'm an Evangelical, and I wasn't even alive when most of this crap happened.  And while I obviously didn't know everything as a child, at 18 years old I've already pretty much held the viewpoint that this issue (Gay marriage) is a joke for at least a year and a half now.


'Big E' or 'litte e' evangelical?

----------


## Brett85

> The Family Research Council said the following after Tiller's vigilante justice... I'm sorry, the politically correct term is apparently "Assassination"


That's just something they had to say.  Even if they privately felt that Tiller deserved to die, it wasn't something they could say publicly.  That would've caused a lot of damage to the pro life cause.  It would just make pro lifers look like a bunch of violent extremists.

----------


## supermario21

FF is an actual evangelical, not a statist Christian. I'm a devout Catholic who used to be an altar boy and is now a eucharistic minister. We might as well call the stereotypical evangelicals theocrats, because that's essentially what they are.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> An exercise in liberty from federal regulation.  Also note he said "I probably never used those words" so you're actually quoting Chris Wallace, not Ron Paul.


I know he said "I've never used those words" but he then agreed with Wallace's statement.  That he had never said it before doesn't mean he disagreed with it.

Where are you getting this new prohibitionist Ron Paul from?  I don't honestly know who you're talking about.  Rand?

LOL!



> 'Big E' or 'litte e' evangelical?


I'm not sure what the difference is, TBH.

I attend a conservative baptist church but am probably more reformed baptist theologically, although I don't agree with any group 100% of the time.




> That's just something they had to say.  Even if they privately felt that Tiller deserved to die, it wasn't something they could say publicly.  That would've caused a lot of damage to the pro life cause.  It would just make pro lifers look like a bunch of violent extremists.


And not saying it makes them look like idiots...

Honestly, its ridiculous.  If you aren't a pacifist, and you believe abortion is murder, isn't "Scott Roeder did the right thing and deserves to be pardoned, George Tiller deserved to die" the logical conclusion?

I would have said "I'm glad George Tiller can never murder another innocent child"

Its not even that they stop short of that though.  Somehow, Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Bill" didn't even pass a REPUBLICAN congress, and everyone seems to think that somehow the mothers should be immune to prosection.  Granted, its incredibly hard to ACTUALLY catch someone for this (It really is a wash, even if death was the penalty it would only deter a tiny number of murderers) but the fact that they just assume the mother deserves no punishment is insane.

Abortion doctors CANNOT be murdered.  Its literally impossible.  Their deaths are defense of the innocent, and justice, but you CANNOT murder an abortion doctor.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF is an actual evangelical, not a statist Christian. I'm a devout Catholic who used to be an altar boy and is now a eucharistic minister. We might as well call the stereotypical evangelicals theocrats, because that's essentially what they are.


LOL!  +1.

With varying degrees, this is pretty much true.  Politics isn't really an emphasis in my church but I get the feeling that there are some paleoconservatives in that mix.  That's apparently unusual in the church though, and even still, there are neocons in our midst.  Which is a bit frustrating anytime politics IS brought up.

----------


## devil21

> $#@! you Rand.


Still waiting for some video of these comments for context and intonation. 

Here is the ORIGINAL WashPost article this whole thing is based on, minus all the spin that various bloggers/pundits have placed on it in the meantime, including the OP's link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...add_story.html

Part of the problem here is the widespread, yet wrong, notion among socons that libertarian=anarchist.  Im pretty sure what Rand is saying here is that he isn't a libertarian in the sense that the evangelicals equate libertarians to anarchists, therefore he isn't an anarchist.  He's talking to a particular group that likely believes that libertarians are anarchists.  _We_ know the difference but they do not.

----------


## familydog

No, Rand. You're not a libertarian. You want control over my life and wallet.

----------


## phill4paul

> Part of the problem here is the widespread, yet wrong, notion among socons that libertarian=anarchist.  Im pretty sure what Rand is saying here is that he isn't a libertarian in the sense that the evangelicals equate libertarians to anarchists, therefore he isn't an anarchist.  He's talking to a particular group that likely believes that libertarians are anarchists.  _We_ know the difference but they do not.


  Oh..that's right. It's Ron's job to educate and Rand's job to pander. Got it. $#@! you Rand.

----------


## erowe1

> There wasn't a single non-Evangelical voter that wasn't terrified of a 'true conservative' like Santorum.


Santorum's not an evangelical.

----------


## supermario21

Yeah, Santorum was Catholic, and I don't think ever won the Catholic vote. Romney had that group locked up most of the time. I was always disappointed that Ron didn't do better with us Catholics. The church is anti-war, very pro-life, etc.

----------


## devil21

> I know he said "I've never used those words" but he then agreed with Wallace's statement.  That he had never said it before doesn't mean he disagreed with it.


Your interpretations of his implications do not negate his official statements on the subject nor his long track record of advocating for federal WoD repeal and leaving the decisions entirely up the states.




> Where are you getting this new prohibitionist Ron Paul from?  I don't honestly know who you're talking about.  Rand?


Find me one example where Ron Paul ever stated that heroin should be fully legal across the board.  No, your interpretations of his implications do not count.  Better yet, find that LRC article you referenced before that states such.  I'll wait....




> LOL!


I have more experience and knowledge of all things Ron Paul in my pinky finger than you have in your entire body, young man.  You were growing your first pubic hair when I joined this forum so get off it.

----------


## devil21

> Oh..that's right. It's Ron's job to educate and Rand's job to pander. Got it. $#@! you Rand.


Actually, I suspect he wants to win and is tailoring his comments accordingly.  I'd kinda like to win too.  Ymmv.

----------


## TheGrinch

Very clear what Rand is trying to do now, in disassociating himself from people who frankly are becoming his harshest critics, despite being the closest to him ideologically, and often on little out-of-context blurbs like this that ruffle their feathers.

Look, there is a certain perception about libertarians that is hanging an "albatross" around his neck, even if unfairly, so clearly he doesn't mean that literally. It's like me saying, "I'm not a wife-beating insectuous redneck like most think southerners are, I'm just a good ol'southern boy". That doesn't mean all southerners are the former, in fact him claiming that he's a libertarian conservative means precisely that not all libertarian-minded individuals fit that stereotypical label. 

Why is he making this distinction? well, because he isn't the first to bring up this perception that he doesn't want to define him. He does not mean that as a personal attack or blanket statement, he means to not paint himself in a corner. It's abundantly clear.

Some of you either need to grow some thicker skin and realize what he's doing, or simply don't support him, because I'm getting tired of all the drama queen bull$#@! that's causing him to take more and more and more steps to disassociate himself from people who are more harm than good to him trying to enact change and change minds.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF is an actual evangelical, not a statist Christian. I'm a devout Catholic who used to be an altar boy and is now a eucharistic minister. We might as well call the stereotypical evangelicals theocrats, because that's essentially what they are.


Hey, if you're a Catholic I have a quick question.

If I recall correctly, there's some kind of Catholic dogma that says you HAVE to be opposed to the following:

Abortion

Gay Marriage

Human Cloning

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Euthanasia

Now, I get that abortion and embryonic stem cell research, at least IMO, are infringements on the NAP.  I think gay marriage is more of a joke than the end of the world, but I agree that the state shouldn't be redefining marriage, which to me, is a perfectly legitimate libertarian position to hold as well.

However, as far as I can see it, human cloning and euthanasia are not violations of the NAP.  So I don't see how, from a libertarian perspective, you can justify banning those things.  Yet, IIRC, the Catholic Church insists on it.

Am I incorrect about this, do you disagree with their perception of the situation, or do you disagree with my perception of the situation?

Just curious.

For the record, I strongly believe active euthanasia to be immoral (I don't know if the Catholic teaching requires you to be against passive euthanasia as well, but in that case since you're "Supposed to be dead" I don't have the same moral problem with it if the person requested the plug be pulled in advance) and while I'm not sure if its "Immoral" per say, something doesn't feel right to me about human cloning.

But I can't justify banning euthanasia if the patient consents, nor can I really justify a ban on human cloning.

For the record, I'm just honestly curious here.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> *$#@! RAND PAUL*





> Oh..that's right. It's Ron's job to educate and Rand's job to pander. Got it. $#@! you Rand.





> $#@! you Rand.


Can't you two take your trashy posts back to your RevBox forum?

----------


## phill4paul

> Actually, I suspect he wants to win and is tailoring his comments accordingly.  I'd kinda like to win too.  Ymmv.


  Good on him. Win some lose some. Ymmv indeed.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yeah, Santorum was Catholic, and I don't think ever won the Catholic vote. Romney had that group locked up most of the time. I was always disappointed that Ron didn't do better with us Catholics. *The church is anti-war*, very pro-life, etc.


Yes, but you wouldn't know it by attending Mass in majority-GOP parishes.

----------


## phill4paul

> Can't you two take your trashy posts back to your RevBox forum?


  Got a problem? Take it up with admin.

----------


## James Madison

> Santorum's not an evangelical.


Sorry, I must have missed that between our 'special relationship' with Israel and all the gay-hating. Honest mistake.

----------


## Brett85

> Good on him. Win some lose some. Ymmv indeed.


I'm not all that surprised that Rand is losing the drunk driving advocates.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Got a problem? Take it up with admin.


He's not the one gettting all butthurt by taking a well known stereotype way too literally, and was actually polite about it being trashy to tell Ron Paul's son $#@! you in his own forum.

----------


## James Madison

> I'm not all that surprised that Rand is losing the drunk driving advocates.


Nah, just us exhibitionist potheads. I mean, it's much better to gain the 'I believe it's moral for government storm troopers to break down your house at 2 in the morning because you might be growing a plant' advocates.

----------


## devil21

Everyone should read the WashPost article that this whole thing is based on.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...add_story.html

This fits VERY well with my earlier post in this thread that socons/evangelicals think "libertarian" means "anarchist".  

Context is important!!!!




> In an interview a day before his Iowa trip, Paul, 50, also tried to make clear just what kind of politician he is. “To some, ‘libertarian’ scares people,” he said. “Some of them come up to me and they say, ‘I kind of like you, but I don’t like legalizing heroin.’ And I say, ‘Well, that’s not my position.’ ”
> 
> Paul said he believes in freedom and wants a “virtuous society” where people practice “self-restraint.” Yet he believes in laws and limits as well. Instead of advocating for legalized drugs, for example, he pushes for reduced penalties for many drug offenses.


Im sure some will rake him over the coals for saying anything except "Legalize all the things!" but he's talking to socons that think libertarians are just anarchists by another name.

----------


## satchelmcqueen

ive been through 4 elections where i felt ripped off due to the system. everytime, the only guy telling the truth, was smeared all over the place and cheated. 

that would be ross perot in 92 and 96 and ron paul in 08,12. im tired of it. soooo if rand thinks its wise to say what he did here, ( and really, it kinda is right now) then i wont let that stop me from voting for him. cause he IS running as a republican. he is saying these things so that in the future, $#@!s like mccain, graham, limbaugh, beck, and the media cannot use the libertarian name against him.

come on guys. we know who rand is regardless of the label used. lets not let this weaken his support. its a game!! we all know this for sure by now after the last 6 years. ron was pure and solid. he woulnt bend or stretch anything. even a single word. it was honorable. rand is playing the game. rand will not turn on us i dont think.

----------


## Brett85

> Nah, just us exhibitionist potheads. I mean, it's much better to gain the 'I believe it's moral for government storm troopers to break down your house at 2 in the morning because you might be growing a plant' advocates.


I disagree with him on this issue.  I would rather just put pressure on him to come back to our side than to throw him under the bus.

----------


## phill4paul

> He's not the one gettting all butthurt by taking a well known stereotype way too literally, and was actually polite about you not telling Ron Paul's son $#@! you in his own forum.


  Guess his son needs to watch what he says and how he says it.

----------


## James Madison

> I disagree with him on this issue.  I would rather just put pressure on him to come back to our side than to throw him under the bus.


Whatever helps you sleep at night.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Guess his son needs to watch what he says and how he says it.


Works both ways, when you're not even attempting to listen to what he's trying to say, and just jump on it like he's personally attacking you.

Some of us wouldn't have to defend Rand so staunchly if some of you didn't play gotcha and get butthurt about about every little out-of-context blurb that comes out of his mouth like it negates every good thing he's ever done. Worse than the god damn media, I swear.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'm not all that surprised that Rand is losing the drunk driving advocates.


  You wouldn't be. The middle ground, based on your personal beliefs, is where you choose to dwell.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@TheGrinchwhostoleDC- I'm not going to stop supporting Rand over a silly comment.  It was just a silly comment.

He might have menat what you said, but that's not exactly what he said.  

Honestly, I think most people need to grow up a little before even Rand Paul will have a chance, but I don't know that for certain, so I'm willing to let him do his thing.  And I'm going to vote for him, I mean, why not?  And I'll try to convince thick-headed conservatives that Rand is much more conservative than the other guys in the GOP.  That doesn't mean I respect every word he says.  Sometimes, in trying to walk the line, he just says stupid things.  TBH, me as a libertarian calling him out for it probably makes him look better to the GOP anyway.

----------


## phill4paul

> Works both ways, when you're not even attempting to listen to what he's trying to say, and just jump on it like he's personally attacking you.
> 
> Some of us wouldn't have to defend Rand so staunchly if some of you didn't play gotcha and get butthurt about about every little out-of-context blurb that comes out of his mouth like it negates every good thing he's ever done. Worse than the god damn media, I swear.


  You don't have to defend him. If he has to go out of his way to denigrate libertarians, that's one half of* libertarian*/conservatives, then he might think that he might lose THAT half. Done with him.

----------


## Brett85

> You wouldn't be. The middle ground, based on your personal beliefs, is where you choose to dwell.


Only compared to people on this forum.  Virtually everyone who posts on this forum would be considered a radical libertarian by the average American.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

I just think Rand likes these campaigning opportunities to mess with the fragile minds of his dad's faithful which gives him greater cred with republicans across the board. As some here have said, they aren't republicans so that says it all. If the fragile libs/ancaps stay home and spin that's up to them. This ancap will be maxing, networking w/i the MIGOP and campaigning my balls off for him - just like I did his father. So, for the rhetoric over voting record curmudgeons on here, enjoy:

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sorry, I must have missed that between our 'special relationship' with Israel and all the gay-hating. Honest mistake.


Most Evangelicals honestly do not hate gays, from my experience.  They're obsessed with Israel, yes (Although my dad, who's also the pastor of my church, is not, he does support them for geopolitical reasons but not theological ones and he understands why I don't), and they're very pro-government enforcement of morality, but they don't generally hate gays.

Santorum?  Honestly, I don't think he hates gays either.  He doesn't agree with their lifestyle, but I missed where he said he hates them.  If anything, I think he hates Muslims and the constitution more than he hates gays...




> I'm not all that surprised that Rand is losing the drunk driving advocates.





> Nah, just us exhibitionist potheads. I mean, it's much better to gain the 'I believe it's moral for government storm troopers to break down your house at 2 in the morning because you might be growing a plant' advocates.

----------


## erowe1

> = TBH, me as a libertarian calling him out for it probably makes him look better to the GOP anyway.


That's definitely true.

And having others here react as negatively as some are also makes him look better. That's one of the intended effects of these kinds of comments.

----------


## Brett85

> I just think Rand likes these campaigning opportunities to mess with the fragile minds of his dad's faithful which gives him greater cred with republicans across the board. As some here have said, they aren't republicans so that says it all. If the fragile libs/ancaps stay home and spin that's up to them. This ancap will be maxing, networking w/i the MIGOP and campaigning my balls off for him - just like I did his father. So, for the rhetoric over voting record curmudgeons on here, enjoy:


But you should consider that Rand's stance may hurt him with independents since 60% of independents support legalizing marijuana.  It isn't just libertarians he's in danger of losing with his marijuana prohibition statements.

----------


## phill4paul

> Only compared to people on this forum.  Virtually everyone who posts on this forum would be considered a radical libertarian by the average American.


  Oh yes, the average American is what I should aspire too. Bullet to brain pan. Please.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not all that surprised that Rand is losing the drunk driving advocates.


I'm surprised Ron Paul didn't, I don't think he supports that either...




> Nah, just us exhibitionist potheads. I mean, it's much better to gain the 'I believe it's moral for government storm troopers to break down your house at 2 in the morning because you might be growing a plant' advocates.


I think basically everyone on this forum wants to legalize pot...


> Only compared to people on this forum.  Virtually everyone who posts on this forum would be considered a radical libertarian by the average American.


Yeah, pretty much.

----------


## Dogsoldier

" Libertarianism is a radical "left" movement"

You sir don't even know what a libertarian is. The republican party is the right wing of the democratic party. 

Libertarian is opposite of liberal. Liberals are statists that want to control people and so are republicans.Neither believe in liberty.

Ron Paul IS libertarian and his voting record is proof of that plus he has stated this and why he became republican. He even ran as a libertarian. The reason he became a republican is to grow the movement. He did big time! The republicans and democrats have a monopoly on debates and political power. They won't even let you in the debates if you run on a third party platform. You have no choice but to run as either Rep or Dem if you wanna get anywhere. Ron could have just as easily ran as a Democrat and accomplished everything he did. Its his voting record and that he sticks to the constitution that makes this man bigger then the game now. I'd still be a hard core Ron Paul supporter if he had a D instead of an R after his name and everyone here would too.

----------


## TheGrinch

> @TheGrinchwhostoleDC- I'm not going to stop supporting Rand over a silly comment.  It was just a silly comment.
> 
> He might have menat what you said, but that's not exactly what he said.  
> 
> Honestly, I think most people need to grow up a little before even Rand Paul will have a chance, but I don't know that for certain, so I'm willing to let him do his thing.  And I'm going to vote for him, I mean, why not?  And I'll try to convince thick-headed conservatives that Rand is much more conservative than the other guys in the GOP.  That doesn't mean I respect every word he says.  Sometimes, in trying to walk the line, he just says stupid things.  TBH, me as a libertarian calling him out for it probably makes him look better to the GOP anyway.


Then you get it and I'm not referring to you. 

I'm talking about the drama queens (no offense but I can't think of a better term) who it seems like are just looking for reasons to validate their opinion that rand isn't pure enough for them.

Hell, he's not pure enough for me either, but he does have integrity, a great mentor and is by far the best we got. Thats why I get so irritated when people do the medias smear work for them...  I can see why rand probably thinks that some of this base are more harmful than helpful to getting things done.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

@DogSoldier, I don't know if you understand what leftism actually is.  It certainly isn't the Democratic Party.

----------


## James Madison

> Most Evangelicals honestly do not hate gays, from my experience.  They're obsessed with Israel, yes (Although my dad, who's also the pastor of my church, is not, he does support them for geopolitical reasons but not theological ones and he understands why I don't), and they're very pro-government enforcement of morality, but they don't generally hate gays.
> 
> Santorum?  Honestly, I don't think he hates gays either.  He doesn't agree with their lifestyle, but I missed where he said he hates them.  If anything, I think he hates Muslims and the constitution more than he hates gays...


You're from New York, correct? It may just be your part of the country.

Even in Southwestern Indiana, some of the 'Evangelicals' are pretty vicious. Then journey down to Mississippi where voters recently enacted a ban on gay marriage 83-17%.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's definitely true.
> 
> And having others here react as negatively as some are also makes him look better. That's one of the intended effects of these kinds of comments.


No problem.  Glad to be of service.  Rand can do anything he wants.  Good for him.  But I'm not going to compromise on my principles for him.  Yes, I'll vote for him, and yes, I'll try to persuade others to do the same, but I'm still going to  call him out when he's wrong.




> But you should consider that Rand's stance may hurt him with independents since 60% of independents support legalizing marijuana.  It isn't just libertarians he's in danger of losing with his marijuana prohibition statements.


Yeah, that's true.




> Oh yes, the average American is what I should aspire too. Bullet to brain pan. Please.


Well, to be fair, this is a fringe forum.  That's not a bad thing, in fact, I aspire to have conviction and that means being "Fringe".  The worst thing to be is "moderate" IMO.

The bottom line, however, is that to the public, we are all radical libertarians and are fundamentally in the same coalition. You, I, and TradCon may all disagree on some things but compared to the rest of the country, we really probably do agree close to 99% of the time.  Heck, I have yet to see anyone here as moderate as Rand Paul, and only a couple who were more moderate than Ron. 

Just because you want drunk driving to be illegal doesn't mean you're an extreme authoritarian.  heck, drunk driving bans (on public roads) can be defended on libertarian principle.  Read what Stephan Kinsella says about immigration and then let me know how it applies.

(For the record, Kinsella opposes immigration restrictions, and I oppose the vast majority of such restrictions as well.  However, Kinsella correctly points out that ANY rule for the use of public property is imperfect and that the conclusion of "There should be no rules" is not a given.)

----------


## LibertyEagle

Rand recently posted this on his Facebook.




> If the Republican Party is going to grow and win, it will need to move in a more libertarian direction.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I'm not all that surprised that Rand is losing the drunk driving advocates.


Sigh.

And I'm not all that surprised we live in a quasi police state. More good things to come I'm sure!

Drunk driving* advocates* huh? You are a police state advocate. And that's actually not too far off. I'll try to think of a more fitting (absurd) comparison.

----------


## erowe1

> You're from New York, correct? It may just be your part of the country.
> 
> Even in Southwestern Indiana, some of the 'Evangelicals' are pretty vicious. Then journey down to Mississippi where voters recently enacted a ban on gay marriage 83-17%.


There's no ban on anything. Gay people can do whatever they want down there.

----------


## fr33

> The people who are insulted by this are the kind of people who vote LP in Amash's district.  He's never, ever going to please them.


Oh please. Tell me more about what I do since you are the expert.

We can keep track of it. 

I run around naked smoking pot.

I vote against Amash.

What else?

----------


## erowe1

> You sir don't even know what a libertarian is.


Dogsoldier, could you recommend any books for a novice like HB in case he wants to learn more about libertarianism?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> " Libertarianism is a radical "left" movement"
> 
> You sir don't even know what a libertarian is. The republican party is the right wing of the democratic party. 
> 
> Libertarian is opposite of liberal. Liberals are statists that want to control people and so are republicans.Neither believe in liberty.
> 
> Ron Paul IS libertarian and his voting record is proof of that plus he has stated this and why he became republican. He even ran as a libertarian. The reason he became a republican is to grow the movement. He did big time! The republicans and democrats have a monopoly on debates and political power. They won't even let you in the debates if you run on a third party platform. You have no choice but to run as either Rep or Dem if you wanna get anywhere. Ron could have just as easily ran as a Democrat and accomplished everything he did. Its his voting record and that he sticks to the constitution that makes this man bigger then the game now. I'd still be a hard core Ron Paul supporter if he had a D instead of an R after his name and everyone here would too.


I don't think Ron Paul would have  been successful as a Democrat only because most people primarily care about fiscal issues, and as such, your rank and file Republican is closer to libertarianism than your rank and file democrat.  With the party elites, it doesn't matter, but the average democrat does trust government more than the average Republican.

I'd still support Ron NOW if he was a democrat, but back in 2010 I just assumed the GOP was the good party and the Dems were the bad one.  I may never have noticed Ron back then if he was a Dem.

As for heavenlyboy, he does get it.  He's not saying that libertarianism is liberal.  I don't really think libertarianism is "Left" but I get what he's saying, and I know he's basing it on Rothbard's coalition with the left during Vietnam.

To me "Left" and "Right" are meaningless buzzwords.  There are libertarians, who want very limited or even no government, there are conservatives who want constitutional government, and there  are progressives who want to remake the world through violence.
The "Left" and the "Right" are both predominately progressive.




> Then you get it and I'm not referring to you. 
> 
> I'm talking about the drama queens (no offense but I can't think of a better term) who it seems like are just looking for reasons to validate their opinion that rand isn't pure enough for them.
> 
> Hell, he's not pure enough for me either, but he does have integrity, a great mentor and is by far the best we got. Thats why I get so irritated when people do the medias smear work for them...  I can see why rand probably thinks that some of this base are more harmful than helpful to getting things done.


OK, I thought you were talking about me either.




> You're from New York, correct? It may just be your part of the country.
> 
> Even in Southwestern Indiana, some of the 'Evangelicals' are pretty vicious. Then journey down to Mississippi where voters recently enacted a ban on gay marriage 83-17%.


Yeah, I am from NY, so maybe it is the state, but if "Banning gay marriage" is your definition of hating gay people, I'm afraid we'd just disagree on the meaning of the word "Hate".  Most people in my church (Note: This doesn't include me, I want the government out) do believe government should define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but they aren't actively hostile to gay people.  They just don't agree with their lifestyle (I don't either) and they falsely believe the government has a role in promoting culturally conservative  values.

----------


## Brett85

> Sigh.
> 
> And I'm not all that surprised we live in a quasi police state. More good things to come I'm sure!
> 
> Drunk driving* advocates* huh? You are a police state advocate. And that's actually not too far off. I'll try to think of a more fitting (absurd) comparison.


Have you ever even heard Ron argue against drunk driving laws?  This isn't a mainstream libertarian position that you and others are advocating.

----------


## James Madison

> There's no ban on anything. Gay people can do whatever they want down there.


Did I say they couldn't? Actually, I was quoting the language of the bill, but whatever.

Go walk into a southern church with another dude's hand in yours. See how that turns out.

It's also the same state where 1/3 of the voting public found interracial marriage 'morally wrong'.

----------


## erowe1

> Actually, I was quoting the language of the bill, but whatever.


No you weren't.

Here it is:



> Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state.


I don't see anything hateful in that. I would have voted for it, unless I didn't vote at all.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand recently posted this on his Facebook.


All good stuff.  

As I said, I don't like his original comment, but I'm still behind him.  In a system where everything sucks, Rand is right at least 80% of the time.  I'll take it, and I'll encourage others to do the same.



> Sigh.
> 
> And I'm not all that surprised we live in a quasi police state. More good things to come I'm sure!
> 
> Drunk driving* advocates* huh? You are a police state advocate. And that's actually not too far off. I'll try to think of a more fitting (absurd) comparison.


Unless anyone who supports the existence of the police supports a police state (Which is quite disinginuous, even if technically accurate) I don't think TradCon is in that category.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You're from New York, correct? It may just be your part of the country.
> 
> Even in Southwestern Indiana, some of the 'Evangelicals' are pretty vicious. Then journey down to Mississippi where voters recently enacted a ban on gay marriage 83-17%.


So they don't want gay marriage in Mississippi.  So what?  There are a number of other states that will see it differently.  That's what Ron fought for all his life... to help give back to us what we were supposed to have... a separate test bed of liberty in each state.  If you don't like how it is done in one state, people can move, or try to change the laws where they are.  This is what the 10th Amendment is all about.

It is a vast improvement over a one-size-fits-all dictate at the federal level that is almost impossible to change and to get away from it, you have to move out of the entire country.

----------


## phill4paul

> There's no ban on anything. Gay people can do whatever they want down there.


  Except qualify for the same Federal and State benefits afforded to 'traditionals'. Don't even get into this. Your another that believes things are great as long as we maintain the status quo according to your personal beliefs. Done with people like you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Have you ever even heard Ron argue against drunk driving laws?  This isn't a mainstream libertarian position that you and others are advocating.


The real libertarian position is to privatize the roads, so we're all really arguing about "Second bests" here.




> Did I say they couldn't? Actually, I was quoting the language of the bill, but whatever.
> 
> Go walk into a southern church with another dude's hand in yours. See how that turns out.
> 
> It's also the same state where 1/3 of the voting public found interracial marriage 'morally wrong'.


Well, homosexuality is actually a sin according to the Bible, while interracial marriage is not.




> No you weren't.
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> 
> I don't see anything hateful in that. I would have voted for it, unless I didn't vote at all.


Its not hateful, and its better than a bill that said the opposite, but I still don't think that I could vote because I'd be implicitly agreeing that the state has the authority to define marriage.  I morally agree with the "Man-woman" position and I believe homosexual contact is a sin, but its not the government's business to regulate.

----------


## Brett85

> Unless anyone who supports the existence of the police supports a police state (Which is quite disinginuous, even if technically accurate) I don't think TradCon is in that category.


If drunk driving laws were a huge infringment on individual liberty, you would hear Ron constantly talk about abolishing these laws like he talks about ending the war on drugs.  The fact that he doesn't say anything about it speaks volumes.  To say that someone who supports drunk driving laws supports "the police state" is completely absurd.  There are a lot of libertarians who don't have any problem with drunk driving laws and don't see drunk driving as a victimless crime.  KCchiefs is simply wrong.

----------


## phill4paul

> So they don't want gay marriage in Mississippi.  So what?  There are a number of other states that will see it differently.  That's what Ron fought for all his life... to help give back to us what we were supposed to have... a separate test bed of liberty in each state.  If you don't like how it is done in one state, people can move, or try to change the laws where they are.  This is what the 10th Amendment is all about.
> 
> It is a vast improvement over a one-size-fits-all dictate at the federal level that is almost impossible to change and to get away from it, you have to move out of the entire country.


  But where is the push to get rid of Federal benefits to 'traditional' couples? Oh..well..herp..derp. "I think the federal government should be out of it." Lol. When was the last time the 'traditionalists' pushed THAT legislature? Lol. Another of the "I'm fine as long is it is the "middle of the road" me kind." Done with your kind.

----------


## erowe1

> Except qualify for the same Federal and State benefits afforded to 'traditionals'. Don't even get into this. Your another that believes things are great as long as we maintain the status quo according to your personal beliefs. Done with people like you.


Bye.

Just don't pretend that wanting to give government benefits to same-sex couples is somehow libertarian of you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So they don't want gay marriage in Mississippi.  So what?  There are a number of other states that will see it differently.  That's what Ron fought for all his life... to help give back to us what we were supposed to have... a separate test bed of liberty in each state.  If you don't like how it is done in one state, people can move, or try to change the laws where they are.  This is what the 10th Amendment is all about.
> 
> It is a vast improvement over a one-size-fits-all dictate at the federal level that is almost impossible to change and to get away from it, you have to move out of the entire country.


This.  +1.




> Except qualify for the same Federal and State benefits afforded to 'traditionals'. Don't even get into this. Your another that believes things are great as long as we maintain the status quo according to your personal beliefs. Done with people like you.


Ron Paul has never supported gay marriage either.

Personally, if we have to involve any government, the Federal government should get out of it whatsoever.  At the state level, if the government is going to define marriage, and I don't believe it should, I'd prefer them to define it correctly (Between a man and a woman.)  However, I'd be in favor of a strong civil union that does basically the same thing for gay couples.

I don't want government changing the definition of marriage.  If that makes me a "Statist" so be it, but that's not what I believe in.  If liberty means acceptance of all behaviors, count me out (This is Gary Johnson's problem as well.)  I strongly believe you have the right to do what you want as long as you're not hurting anyone else.  That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

----------


## phill4paul

> If drunk driving laws were a huge infringment on individual liberty, you would hear Ron constantly talk about abolishing these laws like he talks about ending the war on drugs.  The fact that he doesn't say anything about it speaks volumes.  To say that someone who supports drunk driving laws supports "the police state" is completely absurd.  There are a lot of libertarians who don't have any problem with drunk driving laws and *don't see drunk driving as a victimless crime.*


  If I drink a fifth and drive home without an accident then it is a victim less crime. No?

----------


## fr33

> Bye.
> 
> Just don't pretend that wanting to give government benefits to same-sex couples is somehow libertarian of you.


Benefits, as in tax breaks? Hell yes. Give tax breaks to as many people as we can.

----------


## erowe1

> Benefits, as in tax breaks? Hell yes. Give tax breaks to as many people as we can.


No. As in entitlements.

----------


## phill4paul

> I'd prefer them to define it correctly (Between a man and a woman.)


  That's really all you needed to say. Done with you also.

----------


## James Madison

> No you weren't.
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> 
> I don't see anything hateful in that. I would have voted for it, unless I didn't vote at all.


Forcing your beliefs at gunpoint on people who disagree is pretty 'hateful'.




> Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman.


Government-recognized marriage is banned, yes.




> So they don't want gay marriage in Mississippi.  So what?  There are a number of other states that will see it differently.  That's what Ron fought for all his life... to help give back to us what we were supposed to have... a separate test bed of liberty in each state.  If you don't like how it is done in one state, people can move, or try to change the laws where they are.  This is what the 10th Amendment is all about.
> 
> It is a vast improvement over a one-size-fits-all dictate at the federal level that is almost impossible to change and to get away from it, you have to move out of the entire country.


I don't care what 83% of Mississippians think about marriage or gay people. I care that 83% of Mississippians believe its just to put a gun to someone's head and force them to abide by someone else's beliefs. That is immoral, not matter how you view the morality of homosexual marriage.

----------


## Brett85

> If I drink a fifth and drive home without an accident then it is a victim less crime. No?


No.  All of the drivers out on the road were victims, since you endangered their liberty and their lives by driving drunk.

----------


## supermario21

> Yes, but you wouldn't know it by attending Mass in majority-GOP parishes.


I don't live in a very pro-GOP area (rust belt of NE Ohio/mostly blue dog). However, most of the people I know and the young people in the parish are mostly Republican. The Church (or at least mine) rails against abortion, war, and euthanasia. Gay marriage really hasn't been an issue here (probably because the law isn't going to change in Ohio any time soon if ever). Maybe its different in the south or traditional Republican areas, but I wouldn't know.

----------


## Brett85

> That's really all you needed to say. Done with you also.


He said that he wants to get the governmento out of marriage.  How exactly is that not the libertarian position?

----------


## erowe1

> Its not hateful, and its better than a bill that said the opposite, but I still don't think that I could vote because I'd be implicitly agreeing that the state has the authority to define marriage.


Did you see anything in it that, using the words it used, actively involved the state in anything the state shouldn't do, including defining marriage?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If drunk driving laws were a huge infringment on individual liberty, you would hear Ron constantly talk about abolishing these laws like he talks about ending the war on drugs.  The fact that he doesn't say anything about it speaks volumes.  To say that someone who supports drunk driving laws supports "the police state" is completely absurd.  There are a lot of libertarians who don't have any problem with drunk driving laws and don't see drunk driving as a victimless crime.  KCchiefs is simply wrong.


I do get his position, and there are some libertarians (Such as Walter Block) who do actually believe that since the state is an illegitimate property owner, they do NOT have the right to set rules regarding the use of their own property.  But since this would hurt the victims (Taxpayers) even more, I simply disagree with his position.

I don't understand the amount of venom in his post.  You're way  more libertarian than Rand Paul is, but for some reason Ron Paul's son is immune to any kind of criticism even for bigger mistakes, but anyone else who has a minor disagreement with 5% of what one individual sees as the "Libertarian creed" (Even though libertarians don't even agree on it) is some kind of radical statist.

I'd much, MUCH rather have you as President than Rand Paul, let alone any of the other baffoons that think they're worthy of the job.  I doubt we agree on anything, but I agree with you WAY more than I do anyone in politics.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Real classy, boys.




> " Originally Posted by *John F Kennedy III* 
> $#@! RAND PAUL





> "Originally Posted by *phill4paul * 
> Oh..that's right. It's Ron's job to educate and Rand's job to pander. Got it. $#@! you Rand.





> "Originally Posted by *phill4paul * 
> $#@! you Rand.


"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul

----------


## supermario21

Lol the original Rockwell/Paul coalition of paleoconservatives and libertarians is crumbling even in this thread!

----------


## phill4paul

> Bye.
> 
> Just don't pretend that wanting to give government benefits to same-sex couples is somehow libertarian of you.


   That which does not apply to all applies to none. Don't hide behind bull$#@! diatribes about how you oppose it because you oppose government intervention. You like thing your way and want staus quo. That's not libertarian.

----------


## erowe1

> Forcing your beliefs at gunpoint on people who disagree is pretty 'hateful'.


Where was that in the text of the amendment?

It explicitly prohibited the state from a form of forcing some people's beliefs on others at gunpoint, by prohibiting it from recognizing same-sex marriages. But I didn't see anything in it that did the opposite, and actually forced any belief on anyone at gunpoint.

----------


## phill4paul

> Real classy, boys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul


  Oh take a flying jump. If he doesn't want to stir the pot then he should pander. Oh, that's right..he does...lololol.

----------


## erowe1

> That which does not apply to all applies to none. Don't hide behind bull$#@! diatribes about how you oppose it because you oppose government intervention. You like thing your way and want staus quo. That's not libertarian.


You're still here?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's really all you needed to say. Done with you also.


Wow, talk about overemphasizing irrelevant issues.  Frankly, I'm "Done" with anyone who believes that gay marriage is some kind of grand libertarian crusade rather than a silly side issue.  Frankly, I couldn't care less what a candidate thinks of this.   Its just not a big deal.




> He said that he wants to get the governmento out of marriage.  How exactly is that not the libertarian position?


I'll never know.  I think his point is that, if the state is going to be involved, he wants equal recognition for gay couples.  That's not the way I view the issue, but I can understand it.  Again, we're really just talking about "Second bests" here anyway, not ideal libertarian positions.  What I don't understand is why someone would feel so strongly about a "Second best" solution, even while we all know what the real solution is (Its almost always "Get the government out" or "privatize" or "let the market handle it" or something along those lines) that they would outright ostracize someone from the movement.

You know what, I'm done with the idiocy.  If someone wants to be "Done with me" over something as stupid as gay marriage than I guess I'm done with them too...




> Did you see anything in it that, using the words it used, actively involved the state in anything the state shouldn't do, including defining marriage?


I'm not sure.  It seems to me that its defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  Which is the correct definition, but voting for it still implies that the state has the right to define words.

It isn't a big deal to me, however.

----------


## phill4paul

> You're still here?


  Did I say I was leaving? I said I was "done with you." Meaning that you have lost all credibility in my eyes. But of course THIS ^^^ is the best rebuttal you have. SMFH.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh take a flying jump. If he doesn't want to stir the pot then he should pander. Oh, that's right..he does...lololol.


If you want to blame someone for why so many Americans believe that the term libertarian and anarchist are synonymous, take it up with the people on this forum and elsewhere who use the terms interchangeably and that includes Lew Rockwell.  

Rand calls himself a libertarian Republican and a constitutional conservative.  People around here should be applauding him, because he has caused a lot of Americans to stop running away in horror when the term libertarian is mentioned.  If they are running away in horror, they aren't hearing what you have to say.

----------


## Dogsoldier

"Dogsoldier, could you recommend any books for a novice like HB in case he wants to learn more about libertarianism?"

Well there are Ron Pauls books and you could check out the libertarian platform. I mean if your a Ron Pauler then whether you like it or not you believe in libertarian ideas. You believe in LIBERTY! Ron Paul was for about 30% of what Romney stood for and I'm being generous there and 85% or more for what Gary Johnson stood for.  


"I don't think Ron Paul would have been successful as a Democrat" I disagree its the mans ideas and firm stance on them that made him. It took him 30 years though.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand recently posted this on his Facebook.


I wonder if Rand posted this as a result of all the criticism over his comments about drugs.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not sure.  It seems to me that its defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  Which is the correct definition, but voting for it still implies that the state has the right to define words.
> 
> It isn't a big deal to me, however.


I didn't really see that. But when it comes to words that are already a part of state laws, even bad laws, the state should define them at least for the purpose of their use in those laws, especially when it can define them in a way that prevents them from expanding those bad laws beyond where they already are.

If a state has some laws requiring extra spending for special-ed students, and some movement were to start up saying that all students are special, trying to force the state to spend more, then I'd definitely be for legislation that circumscribes the definition of "special ed" so that they couldn't get away with that. Would I still be for repealing the laws for spending extra money on special ed in the first place? Of course, as well as all other state spending on education and anything else. But if the word is in the law, then some definition is going to obtain, and I'd rather it be a good one than a bad one.

----------


## erowe1

> "Dogsoldier, could you recommend any books for a novice like HB in case he wants to learn more about libertarianism?"
> 
> Well there are Ron Pauls books and you could check out the libertarian platform. I mean if your a Ron Pauler then whether you like it or not you believe in libertarian ideas. You believe in LIBERTY! Ron Paul was for about 30% of what Romney stood for and I'm being generous there and 85% or more for what Gary Johnson stood for.


OK. So would you say that Johnson was more of a libertarian than Ron Paul?

ETA: Also, check out the "reply with quote" option.

----------


## James Madison

> Where was that in the text of the amendment?
> 
> *It explicitly prohibited the state from a form of forcing some people's beliefs on others at gunpoint, by prohibiting it from recognizing same-sex marriages.* But I didn't see anything in it that did the opposite, and actually forced any belief on anyone at gunpoint.


Read that sentence again, please.

Government force is used to enforce the prohibition of government recognizing same-sex marriages, all accomplished by prohibiting the government from forcing some people's beliefs on others at gunpoint and in doing so forces some people's beliefs on others at gunpoint.

Did I get that right?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Benefits, as in tax breaks? Hell yes. Give tax breaks to as many people as we can.


I agree with this.  I'd vote for that anytime.  I'd vote for recognition of civil unions that give these benefits any time.  But as far as the state defining marriage goes, I'm not going to vote for a law that says gay marriage is actually a form of marriage.




> No.  All of the drivers out on the road were victims, since you endangered their liberty and their lives by driving drunk.


I agree with the drunk driving law, but I don't really agree with your reason.  The people IN GENERAL are already being victimized by the very nature of the state owning the road.  Provision of a road that the people can use is just a partial compensation for that theft.  In my opinion, and in the opinion of most people, a reasonable law restricting drunk drivers that could make the road more dangerous provides better utility for the road.  

But if there were a private road that said "Drunk drivers welcome" and you drove on it... drunk drivers would be welcome.  You wouldn't be victimized by sharing the road with drunk drivers.

Technically there's not really anyone's life being victimized until there's an accident.  Until then, its a property rights issue.

YMMV.




> Lol the original Rockwell/Paul coalition of paleoconservatives and libertarians is crumbling even in this thread!


LOL!  Yeah, it is.  It was already hurt when Buchanan endorsed Mitt FREAKING Romney over Ron Paul, but this thread is killing it even more.

Lol!  I'm sure Ron Paul would be disappointed.  Oh well...

Phil4Paul should probably change his name to "PhilagainstPaul."  I'll remind you that Ron associated with, and endorsed, conservative candidate Chuck Baldwin, and while I like Baldwin a lot, he was way more conservative/authoritarian on social issues than anyone in this thread.

----------


## phill4paul

> Wow, talk about overemphasizing irrelevant issues.  Frankly, I'm "Done" with anyone who believes that gay marriage is some kind of grand libertarian crusade rather than a silly side issue.  Frankly, I couldn't care less what a candidate thinks of this.   Its just not a big deal.


 Yeah, just a side issue to teh gayz out there. It means nothing when your partner is admitted to a hospital and you, knowing of your partners condition and wishes, start to advise the doctor only to have the doctor offended and you physically ejected from the hospital. Two gay buds of mine experienced THAT. Just a side issue though. Nothing life or death or anything like that. It's just not a big deal.

----------


## erowe1

> Read that sentence again, please.
> 
> Government force is used to enforce the prohibition of government recognizing same-sex marriages, all accomplished by prohibiting the government from forcing some people's beliefs on others at gunpoint and in doing so forces some people's beliefs on others at gunpoint.
> 
> Did I get that right?


Not really.

Because of the part where you tried to say that when the government does not enforce something, it's using government force. Now if the government did recognize those marriages, that would involve government force. Is that what you're saying you want?

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah, just a side issue to teh gayz out there. It means nothing when your partner is admitted to a hospital and you, knowing of your partners condition and wishes, start to advise the doctor only to have the doctor offended and you physically ejected from the hospital. Two gay buds of mine experienced THAT. Just a side issue though. Nothing life or death or anything like that. It's just not a big deal.


He said that he supports civil unions, which has all of the exact same legal benefits of marriage, just not the title.

----------


## phill4paul

> Phil4Paul should probably change his name to "PhilagainstPaul."  I'll remind you that Ron associated with, and endorsed, conservative candidate Chuck Baldwin, and while I like Baldwin a lot, he was way more conservative/authoritarian on social issues than anyone in this thread.


  Yep that's me. Big Ron hater here. 




> About me: 18 years old, Christian, Baptist, Libertarian, minarchist, strict constructionist, anti-federalist, anti-war, anti-prohibition, pro-nullification, pro-gun, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-peace, pro-freedom.


  Some real exploring for you do do in the next 30 years.

----------


## phill4paul

> He said that he supports civil unions, which has all of the exact same legal benefits of marriage, just not the title.


  No. They don't. Brush up on the subject and get back to me. I've explained many number of times in many posts that you were a part of. THAT is why I'm done repeating myself to you.

----------


## erowe1

> Yeah, just a side issue to teh gayz out there. It means nothing when your partner is admitted to a hospital and you, knowing of your partners condition and wishes, start to advise the doctor only to have the doctor offended and you physically ejected from the hospital. Two gay buds of mine experienced THAT. Just a side issue though. Nothing life or death or anything like that. It's just not a big deal.


Oh, OK. So what you want, as a libertarian, is for the state to tell the doctor he's not allowed to do that. Is that right?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I didn't really see that. But when it comes to words that are already a part of state laws, even bad laws, the state should define them at least for the purpose of their use in those laws, especially when it can define them in a way that prevents them from expanding those bad laws beyond where they already are.
> 
> If a state has some laws requiring extra spending for special-ed students, and some movement were to start up saying that all students are special, trying to force the state to spend more, then I'd definitely be for legislation that circumscribes the definition of "special ed" so that they couldn't get away with that. Would I still be for repealing the laws for spending extra money on special ed in the first place? Of course, as well as all other state spending on education and anything else. But if the word is in the law, then some definition is going to obtain, and I'd rather it be a good one than a bad one.


Yeah, I get your point here.  The difference is that marriage law is complicated, and while I don't know a whole lot about it, I already know there are some benefits of marriage (Like tax breaks) that gay people should receive, others that they should sometimes receive (Like hospital visitation, there should be no public hospitals, but if there is, I do think they should be able to see their partners) and other benefits that they shouldn't receive (Anything to do with entitlements, since nobody should receive those) and I don't agree with calling it "Marriage."

I don't know.  YOu have a point.  I really don't think its a big deal.  Anytime you're talking aboutt a "Second best" option, the solution is going to be iffy and its going to be hard to pinpoint the correct solution.  

Just wondering, if Massachusettes (This is crazy, even for Massachusettes, but I'm just throwing out a hypothetical) were goingto pass a law saying ONLY gay marriages are recognized, would you vote in favor of it in order to stop straight marital couples from getting entitlements, or whatever?

Marriage law is tricky from a libertarian perspective, if you can't get government out of it I think there are a variety of legitimate "SEcond best" options and I don't necessarily think its a big deal if we disagree on which second option is less bad.  Personally, I'd probably abstain from voting on that law, but I'm not sure and I'm definitely open minded on that topic.




> OK. So would you say that Johnson was more of a libertarian than Ron Paul?


LOL!  Anyone who thinks that is on something harder than pot, and so should support Ron Paul over Gary Johnson because Johnson would still punish them for using whatever they are using

----------


## James Madison

> Not really.
> 
> Because of the part where you tried to say that when the government does not enforce something, it's using government force. Now if the government did recognize those marriages, that would involve government force. Is that what you're saying you want?


Government IS enforcing an arbitrary definition that some people may not agree with, and it does so using force. If I disagree, I'm told to shut-up and move along; tyranny of the majority and nothing more.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Have you ever even heard Ron argue against drunk driving laws?  This isn't a mainstream libertarian position that you and others are advocating.


See, now you have a way with words. Not in a good way, either. Have you ever heard Ron Paul advocate for smoking pot? Of course not, but he advocated against marijuana laws. *So somewhere along the line when people have advocated against DUI laws it became advocating for DUIs.* That is slippery, slithering, statist speak. I am against driving under the influence. I am also against DUI laws. Mainly because I understand the dangers to be completely blown out of proportion. (from their own stats, AND my personal experiences) 

FFS, I don't care if it isn't mainstream.

Not bombing brown people and cranially vacuuming baby's brains isn't mainstream. $#@! em. I know the truth.

As if the misdirected, propagandized, largely 'illiterate,' nosy, immoral, electorate is who I ought to aspire to become. Leave me be and I'll leave you be is much too complicated for them. The Golden Rule is anathema. And_ I_ need to assimilate? It's no wonder I've been at a loss for words today.

----------


## erowe1

> Just wondering, if Massachusettes (This is crazy, even for Massachusettes, but I'm just throwing out a hypothetical) were goingto pass a law saying ONLY gay marriages are recognized, would you vote in favor of it in order to stop straight marital couples from getting entitlements, or whatever?


If Massachusetts took its marriage benefits that it now gives to both hetero couples and same-sex couples and cut them down to just same-sex couples, would I be for that. Yes. In fact, that would be as close of a thing to getting Massachusetts out of marriage completely as I can think of.

I agree with you about tax benefits, though. Anything that results in less revenue for the government, including stealing less money from same-sex couples, is good. I'm more concerned about the other things.

----------


## Brett85

> LOL!  Anyone who thinks that is on something harder than pot, and so should support Ron Paul over Gary Johnson because Johnson would still punish them for using whatever they are using


But Gary Johnson is more libertarian than Ron because he supports abortion and gay marriage.  Don't you know that?

----------


## erowe1

> If I disagree, I'm told to shut-up and move along


No you're not. Where did you get that out of the amendment I showed you?

----------


## Brett85

> See, now you have a way with words. Not in a good way, either. Have you ever heard Ron Paul advocate for smoking pot? Of course not, but he advocated against marijuana laws. *So somewhere along the line when people have advocated against DUI laws it became advocating for DUIs.* That is slippery, slithering, statist speak. I am against driving under the influence. I am also against DUI laws. Mainly because I understand the dangers to be completely blown out of proportion. (from their own stats, AND my personal experiences)


This was the question I asked:  "Have you ever even heard Ron argue against drunk driving laws?"  I said nothing about personally supporting or personally opposing driving under the influence at all.  My question specifically mentioned drunk driving laws, not Ron's personal opinion on drunk driving.  I've never heard him advocate abolishing drunk driving laws.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, just a side issue to teh gayz out there. It means nothing when your partner is admitted to a hospital and you, knowing of your partners condition and wishes, start to advise the doctor only to have the doctor offended and you physically ejected from the hospital. Two gay buds of mine experienced THAT. Just a side issue though. Nothing life or death or anything like that. It's just not a big deal.


You know what?  I'm just going to say the politically incorrect thing.  Compared to our wars in the middle east and our bombs that kill thousands of innocent people; compared to the War on Drugs that makes us have  the highest PRISON POPULATION (Pay attention, people are being thrown into cages), compared to the NDAA which makes ANY CITIZEN subject to being thrown into a cage indefinitely for ANY REASON, compared to our screwed up entitlements system that destroys the future of EVERY SINGLE PERSON OF MY GENERATION, compared to drone strikes, that kill innocent people without trial, compared to the abortion holocaust which has left 50 million of the unborn in this country dead, compared to the Federal Reserve system which debases the currency and punishes us all for the benefits of the banksters who push previously mentioned wars, compared to the fact that every citizen can be wiretapped at any time without trial, and compared to the young people who have been sexually molested by the "TSA" (More like "RapeUSA") ... yeah, your pet issue is comparatively minor.  And yes, I'd say the same exact thing if it were interracial marriage.*

Yes, in a public hospital, gays should be able to visit their partners.  And civil unions allow for that.  Heck, IIRC so do domestic partnerships.  But even if they can't, comparing that to the issues I described above just makes you a liberal propaganda agent.  Change your name, you aren't for what Ron Paul stood for.  Ron Paul wanted governemnt OUT of this issue, he didn't want the state to redefine marriage.

If you seriously think gay marriage is the biggest issue we as a nation face, you're absolutely crazy.

*Note that I am NOT against interracial marriage being recognized.  I'm completely for it, unless/until government gets out of marriage.  But to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage in order to prove why I should be passionate about the side issue is silly.  There's multiple reasons why its silly, but the biggest one is that if that issue was still an issue, it still wouldn't be the most important one.

----------


## supermario21

> But Gary Johnson is more libertarian than Ron because he supports abortion and gay marriage.  Don't you know that?


It's funny because I think it was in his RT interview with Abby that these issues should be federalized because states shouldn't be allowed to deny "civil rights." Gary's becoming an egotistical statist it seems. But like FF said, I honestly don't know how I'd vote if it were a ballot issue on gay marriage, the fine print details such as religious protections, etc would determine whether or not I'd support it.

----------


## James Madison

> No you're not. Where did you get that out of the amendment I showed you?


You are forcing your personal beliefs on me without my consent.

This isn't that hard to understand.

----------


## erowe1

OK. I've been thinking this for awhile. I'm not sure if this is where to say it. But I'm really impressed with how smart FF is for an 18 year old. Kudos kid.

----------


## erowe1

> You are forcing your personal beliefs on me without my consent.
> 
> This isn't that hard to understand.


But it's not true.

What does that even mean anyway? Forcing beliefs on you? Like, you think the amendment requires you to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and says for something bad to happen to you if you don't?

----------


## phill4paul

> Oh, OK. So what you want, as a libertarian, is for the state to tell the doctor he's not allowed to do that. Is that right?


  You do understand the concept of power of attorney? No? The right for one individual to dictate the will of another in the event  the one becomes incapacitated?

----------


## phill4paul

> OK. I've been thinking this for awhile. I'm not sure if this is where to say it. But I'm really impressed with how smart FF is for an 18 year old. Kudos kid.


  I'm sure he is ripe for you to take under your wing. Your thoughts are pretty close.

----------


## erowe1

> You do understand the concept of power of attorney? No? The right for one individual to dictate the will of another in the event  the one becomes incapacitated?


Yes.

But that doesn't answer my question. Are you saying that you want the state to prevent the doctor from doing what he did? And you think there's something libertarian about that?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Government IS enforcing an arbitrary definition that some people may not agree with, and it does so using force. If I disagree, I'm told to shut-up and move along; tyranny of the majority and nothing more.


ANY definition of marriage given to us from the government does that.  I'd rather them not define it.  But if they are going to do so, I'd rather them define it in a way that I'd agree with.  But I can't really vote that way with the way the debate is currently framed, I can't really vote on the issue at all unless "Get the government out" appears on the ballot.




> See, now you have a way with words. Not in a good way, either. Have you ever heard Ron Paul advocate for smoking pot? Of course not, but he advocated against marijuana laws. *So somewhere along the line when people have advocated against DUI laws it became advocating for DUIs.* That is slippery, slithering, statist speak. I am against driving under the influence. I am also against DUI laws. Mainly because I understand the dangers to be completely blown out of proportion. (from their own stats, AND my personal experiences) 
> 
> FFS, I don't care if it isn't mainstream.
> 
> Not bombing brown people and cranially vacuuming baby's brains isn't mainstream. $#@! em. I know the truth.
> 
> As if the misdirected, propagandized, largely 'illiterate,' nosy, immoral, electorate is who I ought to aspire to become. Leave me be and I'll leave you be is much too complicated for them. The Golden Rule is anathema. And_ I_ need to assimilate? It's no wonder I've been at a loss for words today.


Yes, you have a point.  "Mainstream" doesn't really matter.  I'm just curious what you think of the argument I presented.  

Should it be illegal to drive on the left side of the road?   And I don't mean passing people, I mean literally driving on the left side of the road.

If you say "Yes" you are agreeing that the state does have the right to set SOME rules, even on its illegitimately held property.

At the very least, comparing drunk driving laws to murder (The pc term is "Abortion" but I don't give a crap) or murder (The pc term is "War" but  I don't give a crap) isn't really fair, IMO.  At the very least, there's a difference in scale there.




> If Massachusetts took its marriage benefits that it now gives to both hetero couples and same-sex couples and cut them down to just same-sex couples, would I be for that. Yes. In fact, that would be as close of a thing to getting Massachusetts out of marriage completely as I can think of.
> 
> I agree with you about tax benefits, though. Anything that results in less revenue for the government, including stealing less money from same-sex couples, is good. I'm more concerned about the other things.


See why I can't vote though?  There's some benefits that should exist, and others that shouldn't, either way.  Its a paradox, you can't win.

My personal conviction is not to vote for a bad law, even if the good in it outweighs the bad.  As such, I would vote no on an entire budget if it gave one dollar to planned parenthood, I wouldn't vote on marriage laws like this, and so on.  I can understand why some libertarians might vote for the "Least bad" option but I'm not going to do that.




> But Gary Johnson is more libertarian than Ron because he supports abortion and gay marriage.  Don't you know that?


I know that's what the MSM says.  LOL!

----------


## James Madison

> But it's not true.
> 
> What does that even mean anyway? Forcing beliefs on you? Like, you think the amendment requires you to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and says for something bad to happen to you if you don't?


You force your definition of marriage on me; my definition may be different than yours. What makes yours better than mine? Because you have sub-80 IQ goons with auto rifles on your side?

The answer is to get government out of marriage. That way people can hold to whatever definition they so choose.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> OK. I've been thinking this for awhile. I'm not sure if this is where to say it. But I'm really impressed with how smart FF is for an 18 year old. Kudos kid.


Thanks!  +1


Thank Ron Paul, LRC, and... ironically enough, a left wing forum.  Basically, even though everything they said was basically wrong, arguing with them managed to get me to figure out the inconsistencies in my own positions.





> I'm sure he is ripe for you to take under your wing. Your thoughts are pretty close.

----------


## erowe1

> You force your definition of marriage on me


How? What does that even mean?

I can't find any way to construe that amendment that has it forcing you to accept some definition of anything.




> The answer is to get government out of marriage. That way people can hold to whatever definition they so choose.


I agree that that's the answer. But people can hold whatever definition they choose right now, including in Mississippi.

----------


## Dogsoldier

"would you say that Johnson was more of a libertarian than Ron Paul?"

No...Johnson was not most libertarians first pick either Ron Paul was but then Ron stepped out of the race. Given the choice though between Johnson and Romney it was an easy choice. It was either vote Johnson or not at all. I would have wrote in Ron Paul if I knew that it would have counted but it doesn't. You might as well be writing in Mickey Mouse..No way I could believe that Ron Paul voted for Romney I think he voted Johnson....I mean 30% Romney 85% Johnson. Who would you think he voted for?

----------


## erowe1

> My personal conviction is not to vote for a bad law, even if the good in it outweighs the bad.  As such, I would vote no on an entire budget if it gave one dollar to planned parenthood, I wouldn't vote on marriage laws like this, and so on.  I can understand why some libertarians might vote for the "Least bad" option but I'm not going to do that.


Honestly, I think there's nowhere to go with your approach except the strict nonvoting route. I respect that thinking. But I don't think there's any way to bring it into real-world politics. I'm actually surprised that you, having said this, would still say you'll support Rand for president.

----------


## Dogsoldier

"The answer is to get government out of marriage. That way people can hold to whatever definition they so choose."

I just wanna add...Why would anyone need a license=permission to get married? Is government our king? I thought we were free people. Its between me and whoever I'm marrying and God if I believe in a God.

----------


## erowe1

> "would you say that Johnson was more of a libertarian than Ron Paul?"
> 
> No...Johnson was not most libertarians first pick either Ron Paul was but then Ron stepped out of the race. Given the choice though between Johnson and Romney it was an easy choice. It was either vote Johnson or not at all. I would have wrote in Ron Paul if I knew that it would have counted but it doesn't. You might as well be writing in Mickey Mouse..No way I could believe that Ron Paul voted for Romney I think he voted Johnson....I mean 30% Romney 85% Johnson. Who would you think he voted for?


I think you might be right. If he voted for anybody for president, it was Johnson. He might have not voted for anybody.

----------


## phill4paul

> You know what?  I'm just going to say the politically incorrect thing.  Compared to our wars in the middle east and our bombs that kill thousands of innocent people; compared to the War on Drugs that makes us have  the highest PRISON POPULATION (Pay attention, people are being thrown into cages), compared to the NDAA which makes ANY CITIZEN subject to being thrown into a cage indefinitely for ANY REASON, compared to our screwed up entitlements system that destroys the future of EVERY SINGLE PERSON OF MY GENERATION, compared to drone strikes, that kill innocent people without trial, compared to the abortion holocaust which has left 50 million of the unborn in this country dead, compared to the Federal Reserve system which debases the currency and punishes us all for the benefits of the banksters who push previously mentioned wars, compared to the fact that every citizen can be wiretapped at any time without trial, and compared to the young people who have been sexually molested by the "TSA" (More like "RapeUSA") ... yeah, your pet issue is comparatively minor.  And yes, I'd say the same exact thing if it were interracial marriage.*


  To YOU. Not that I disagree. EVERY one has their sliding scale.




> Yes, in a public hospital, gays should be able to visit their partners.  And civil unions allow for that.  Heck, IIRC so do domestic partnerships.  But even if they can't, comparing that to the issues I described above just makes you a liberal propaganda agent.  Change your name, you aren't for what Ron Paul stood for.  Ron Paul wanted governemnt OUT of this issue, he didn't want the state to redefine marriage.


  It's not about visitation rights it is about power of attorney. You're young and have YOUR priorities. You haven't fully investigated it yet. I get that.




> If you seriously think gay marriage is the biggest issue we as a nation face, you're absolutely crazy.


  I don't think it is the biggest issue. But, to deny it is AN issue at the top of some people agendas is to be ignorant of the issue as a whole. 




> *Note that I am NOT against interracial marriage being recognized.  I'm completely for it, unless/until government gets out of marriage.  But to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage in order to prove why I should be passionate about the side issue is silly.  There's multiple reasons why its silly, but the biggest one is that if that issue was still an issue, it still wouldn't be the most important one.


 
  Thank you for condescending enough to not be against interracial marriage. You have some hope.

----------


## James Madison

> How? What does that even mean?
> 
> I can't find any way to construe that amendment that has it forcing you to accept some definition of anything.
> 
> 
> I agree that that's the answer. But people can hold whatever definition they choose right now, including in Mississippi.


Well, I tried.

----------


## phill4paul

> "The answer is to get government out of marriage. That way people can hold to whatever definition they so choose."
> 
> I just wanna add...Why would anyone need a license=permission to get married? Is government our king? I thought we were free people. Its between me and whoever I'm marrying and God if I believe in a God.


  It goes back to property rights arguments. No one NEEDS for the government to do anything with regards to marriage. It is the fact that it DOES and with that license comes certain power of attorney rights that others do not receive in an equivocal relation.

----------


## James Madison

> "The answer is to get government out of marriage. That way people can hold to whatever definition they so choose."
> 
> I just wanna add...Why would anyone need a license=permission to get married? Is government our king? I thought we were free people. Its between me and whoever I'm marrying and God if I believe in a God.


Marriage licenses were first introduced after the Civil War to stop interracial marriage between blacks and whites. Which is why I can't help but chuckle at people who think gaining 'the right' to a marriage license is freedom.

----------


## Brett85

I think the best comment about Rand's comments I've seen so far is this:

"Rand Paul is trying to appeal to both sides of the issue. Hes being too clever by a half. If he keeps this up, he wont be the heir apparent of Ron Paul hell be the heir apparent of Mitt Romney."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Honestly, I think there's nowhere to go with your approach except the strict nonvoting route. I respect that thinking. But I don't think there's any way to bring it into real-world politics. I'm actually surprised that you, having said this, would still say you'll support Rand for president.


I'm not sure if I'm right here, but I guess the difference I see is this: 

If I vote for a law that has some good elements in it, but also some elements that violate the non-aggression principle (Let's just say, for the sake of argument, since I feel minarchy is a necessary evil, the the infringement is not to fund police, courts, or defensee) I'm outright voting against my libertarianism.  I'm outright giving the government sanction to violate the NAP.  I'm literally enabling them to do so.

On the other hand, by voting for Rand Paul, I'm not really enabling the government to violate the NAP.  Rand isn't likely to do anything more to violate the NAP.  Granted, he won't repeal every law that already exists, but I don't think he can make things any worse, and he'll make things better in some respect.

Let's look at it this way, let's say I proposed a bill to reduce everyone's Federal income taxes to 5%.  Now, you're an anarchist.  you don't agree with this.  You don't believe in any taxation whatsoever (I think its a necessary evil, but I don't like it either.)  Now, that bill doesn't eliminate all taxes, but it doesn't actually increase anyone's taxes either.  The lowest bracket right now is 10%.  So this law will still reduce everyone's taxes.  You should support it.

Let's say there's a law to legalize marijuana, but to tax it.  I'd support that law.  The tax is wrong, but its less wrong than what's already happening.  The black market option exists now, and it will still exist after the new law legalizing marijuana is passed.  However, legalizing the drug does provide an additional option for users, to pay a fine (They call it a "Tax" but its really a fine since its punishing behavior, same thing with the Obamacare BS) rather than risk violent imprisonment.  Again, it doesn't make anything WORSE, so I can do it, even though the law is imperfect.

On the other hand, let's say our pot legalization law also doubled the sentences of harder drug users.  Than I would have to vote against it.  Or even if it increased the sentence for crack sales (For me, this is only for adults, I'm actually OK with laws prohibiting selling to kids) by a year, its still wrong, and I'd still vote no, or possibly "Present."  If the good outweighed the bad, I'd probably refrain from voting rather than voting against it, but I still wouldn't vote for it.

Put simply, I wouldn't vote deliberately to violate the NAP.  But I don't think I'm doing that by supporting Rand.  I'm not thrilled with him, but I think overall, voting for Rand Paul would still lead to a lot LESS aggression, and wouldn't actually lead to the increase of aggression.

With Romney and Obama, it was all a charade to see who could aggress more.  I couldn't just vote for the guy (I mean, even if I were 18) who would add to the aggression more slowly.

Voting for candidates is tricky because you're voting for an entire platform rather than a single law, so its tricky there.  Voting for a candidate doesn't necessarily mean endorsing every single thing he does either.

I guess the tricky question is, do you vote for a candidate who will increase government in one small area, but will reduce it overall?  Yeah, I probably would, but those people don't exist.  Its more like they want to cut government in one small area, and increase it everywhere else, and that just isn't going to fly.

I honestly don't have all the answers and I'm thinking out loud here.  

I've always found ancaps who wouldn't even vote for Ron Paul annoying, but I've always found conservatives who will vote for just any "Lesser evil" that flies by me either.  I demand a high degree of purity, but not absolute perfection.  I couldn't vote for anybody, not even myself, if "Perfection" was my standard.  I guess I could write in "Jesus Christ" but voting for a King to be President is kind of silly (Admittedly, this does apply to the people who voted for Obama as well, LOL)




> "would you say that Johnson was more of a libertarian than Ron Paul?"
> 
> No...Johnson was not most libertarians first pick either Ron Paul was but then Ron stepped out of the race. Given the choice though between Johnson and Romney it was an easy choice. It was either vote Johnson or not at all. I would have wrote in Ron Paul if I knew that it would have counted but it doesn't. You might as well be writing in Mickey Mouse..No way I could believe that Ron Paul voted for Romney I think he voted Johnson....I mean 30% Romney 85% Johnson. Who would you think he voted for?


Johnson's way better than Romney, yes, and I wanted to vote for him, even though he isn't perfect.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> " Libertarianism is a radical "left" movement"
> 
> You sir don't even know what a libertarian is. The republican party is the right wing of the democratic party. 
> 
> Libertarian is opposite of liberal. Liberals are statists that want to control people and so are republicans.Neither believe in liberty.
> 
> Ron Paul IS libertarian and his voting record is proof of that plus he has stated this and why he became republican. He even ran as a libertarian. The reason he became a republican is to grow the movement. He did big time! The republicans and democrats have a monopoly on debates and political power. They won't even let you in the debates if you run on a third party platform. You have no choice but to run as either Rep or Dem if you wanna get anywhere. Ron could have just as easily ran as a Democrat and accomplished everything he did. Its his voting record and that he sticks to the constitution that makes this man bigger then the game now. I'd still be a hard core Ron Paul supporter if he had a D instead of an R after his name and everyone here would too.


You are woefully, woefully incorrect.  Clearly I know a hell of a lot more about libertarianism and liberalism than you do judging by this post.  The way modern Americans use the word "liberal" is incorrect.  It is a bastardization of the word.  It is derived from the latin _Libre_ (liberty).  Mises' tome "Liberalism" explains this in great detail.  I suggest you read it (and as many books about classical liberalism as possible) and educate yourself before you continue making a fool of yourself.  See also "For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" by Rothbard.  


You are correct that RP is a libertarian. From there on, your post is good.

ETA: Libertarianism is and always has been a radical Left movement, as it defies the Established Order set forth by the regime in favor of liberty.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think you might be right. If he voted for anybody for president, it was Johnson. He might have not voted for anybody.


Ron Paul did say he was going to vote, and strongly implied it wasn't for Romney or Obama.  I suspect he did vote for Johnson, but didn't say so because of Rand.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I'm not all that surprised that Rand is losing the drunk driving advocates.





> Sigh.
> 
> And I'm not all that surprised we live in a quasi police state. More good things to come I'm sure!
> 
> Drunk driving* advocates* huh? You are a police state advocate. And that's actually not too far off. I'll try to think of a more fitting (absurd) comparison.





> Have you ever even heard Ron argue against drunk driving laws?  This isn't a mainstream libertarian position that you and others are advocating.





> See, now you have a way with words. Not in a good way, either. Have you ever heard Ron Paul advocate for smoking pot? Of course not, but he advocated against marijuana laws. *So somewhere along the line when people have advocated against DUI laws it became advocating for DUIs.* That is slippery, slithering, statist speak. I am against driving under the influence. I am also against DUI laws. Mainly because I understand the dangers to be completely blown out of proportion. (from their own stats, AND my personal experiences) 
> 
> FFS, I don't care if it isn't mainstream.
> 
> Not bombing brown people and cranially vacuuming baby's brains isn't mainstream. $#@! em. I know the truth.
> 
> As if the misdirected, propagandized, largely 'illiterate,' nosy, immoral, electorate is who I ought to aspire to become. Leave me be and I'll leave you be is much too complicated for them. The Golden Rule is anathema. And_ I_ need to assimilate? It's no wonder I've been at a loss for words today.





> This was the question I asked:  "Have you ever even heard Ron argue against drunk driving laws?"  I said nothing about personally supporting or personally opposing driving under the influence at all.  My question specifically mentioned drunk driving laws, not Ron's personal opinion on drunk driving.  I've never heard him advocate abolishing drunk driving laws.


You aren't getting away that easy. You said, and I quote, "I am not surprised that Rand Paul is losing the *drunk driving advocates*." (Bolding added by me- kcc) As I said in an above post, you have a way with words. Unfortunately for you, I have an okay memory when I need to.

So, now that we cleared that up, and you can read our discussion in entirety, _I'll_ ask again, does Ron Paul being against marijuana laws mean he is pro-marijuana? Or is that the typical MSM tactic of intentionally misrepresenting a position because you can't legitimately argue against it? (Your claim of people being drunk driving *advocates*) Tsk tsk. You seem to do that quite often. Go to the polar extremes and intentionally misrepresent people's positions. It doesn't help your argument at all.

As to whether or not Ron Paul is opposed to DUI laws I am not sure. I haven't heard him speak on it one way or the other. I know he wouldn't be in support of the current system. What his proposed solution to be would probably be pretty close to speaking to the laws we have on the books. With regards to wreckless operation of a motor vehicle, I mean. DUI checkpoints and the general fear driven compliant attitude of the general public, including yourself, would probably make him as sad as I. I don't really like speaking for what other men personally think, especially considering that me and Ron Paul haven't had so much as a conversation. I apologize for being out of line if I misrepresented Ron Paul's views. (to him, as it is a little disrespectful if not downright tacky) I am curious as to what he thinks on the subject though.

----------


## HigherVision

> Rand Paul: Im Not A Libertarian  Im Not Advocating Everyone Run Around With No Clothes On And Smoke Pot


There go my plans for the inauguration party

----------


## Icymudpuppy

This thread got WAYY Off topic.

The issue isn't about whether Rand is or is not a Libertarian or libertarian.  The issue is that he insulted everyone who does personally identify as libertarians and Libertarians by stereotyping us all as Nudist Potheads.  I think he owes us an apology.  I happen to be a big L libertarian who has donated large sums to Ron's and Rand's and Amash's and Massie's, and Kokesh's and Schiff's campaigns, as well as personally paying enough for two people to attend CPAC 2011.  Yet Rand Paul just called me, a non smoking, non drinking, drug free, clean cut, straight laced, commissioned officer of the US Army *a pot smoking nudist*.  I am not amused, and this kind of insult is neither statesmanlike, nor gentlemanly.  In the old days, I would be within the realm of honor to challenge him to a dual.  I politely ask that he not lump me in with libertine extremists lest I be tempted to lump his Baptist raised ass in with the Westboro church.

----------


## phill4paul

> This thread got WAYY Off topic.
> 
> The issue isn't about whether Rand is or is not a Libertarian or libertarian. * The issue is that he insulted everyone who does personally identify as libertarians and Libertarians by stereotyping us all as Nudist Potheads.  I think he owes us an apology.*  I happen to be a big L libertarian who has donated large sums to Ron's and Rand's and Amash's and Massie's, and Kokesh's and Schiff's campaigns, as well as personally paying enough for two people to attend CPAC 2011.  Yet Rand Paul just called me, a non smoking, non drinking, drug free, clean cut, straight laced, commissioned officer of the US Army, a pot smoking nudist.  I am not amused, and this kind of insult is neither statesmanlike, nor gentlemanly.  In the old days, I would be within the realm of honor to challenge him to a dual.  I politely ask that he not lump me in with libertine extremists lest I be tempted to lump his Baptist raised ass in with the Westboro church.


  Understood your outrage from the get go. Sorry if things got hijacked. 

  Your credentials are unimpeachable in this particular bitchfest.

----------


## MikeStanart

Guys, he has to attract PRIMARY voters.  When he wins the Primary he'll dig deeper to his roots to expose his libertarian values in order to pull the moderates away from his opponent.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> This thread got WAYY Off topic.
> 
> The issue isn't about whether Rand is or is not a Libertarian or libertarian.  The issue is that he insulted everyone who does personally identify as libertarians and Libertarians by stereotyping us all as Nudist Potheads.  I think he owes us an apology.  I happen to be a big L libertarian who has donated large sums to Ron's and Rand's and Amash's and Massie's, and Kokesh's and Schiff's campaigns, as well as personally paying enough for two people to attend CPAC 2011.  Yet Rand Paul just called me, a non smoking, non drinking, drug free, clean cut, straight laced, commissioned officer of the US Army, a pot smoking nudist.  I am not amused, and this kind of insult is neither statesmanlike, nor gentlemanly.  In the old days, I would be within the realm of honor to challenge him to a dual.  I politely ask that he not lump me in with libertine extremists lest I be tempted to lump his Baptist raised ass in with the Westboro church.


Plus rep.

FWIW, I am equally insulted. It is the same rhetoric that I hear far too often from ignorant MSM talking heads. (Libertarians just want to smoke pot etc.) Rand Paul knows better. He should apologize.

Rand Paul has done a few things to disappoint me. I generally don't even pay attention to it. The majority will write it off as talking the talk and I don't much care to argue with people about it anymore. It's a shame, considering how many here (of the pot smoking nudist variety) helped him get elected.

ETA: Must spread some rep around, I guess. I'll get back to you with it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> This thread got WAYY Off topic.
> 
> The issue isn't about whether Rand is or is not a Libertarian or libertarian.  The issue is that he insulted everyone who does personally identify as libertarians and Libertarians by stereotyping us all as Nudist Potheads.  I think he owes us an apology.  I happen to be a big L libertarian who has donated large sums to Ron's and Rand's and Amash's and Massie's, and Kokesh's and Schiff's campaigns, as well as personally paying enough for two people to attend CPAC 2011.  Yet Rand Paul just called me, a non smoking, non drinking, drug free, clean cut, straight laced, commissioned officer of the US Army, a pot smoking nudist.  I am not amused, and this kind of insult is neither statesmanlike, nor gentlemanly.  In the old days, I would be within the realm of honor to challenge him to a dual.  I politely ask that he not lump me in with libertine extremists lest I be tempted to lump his Baptist raised ass in with the Westboro church.


Oh, come on.  Does Rand have to jump over tall buildings to get through to blinded Republicans AND babysit us?

----------


## adisongrace

> For those of you who are calling me a "Rand hater" recently, this is what a "Rand hater" post looks like.  I'm always civil and respectful to Rand in my posts, even when I disagree with him.  So please note the difference between the actual "Rand haters" and those of us who are simply trying to hold his feet to the fire on these issues.


No he isn't a Rand hater. He sees Rand for what he is a wolf in a herders clothing. 
I called Rand and his BS *MONTHS* ago. I don't see this as a big surprise.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> Oh, come on.  Does Rand have to jump over tall buildings to get through to blinded Republicans AND babysit us?


I'm not asking for a baby sit.  I just want him to refrain from insulting his base... Distancing himself is one thing.  Insulting us is totally different.  Those who know him personally... Matt Collins, might remind him that there are plenty of Libertarians who are not pot smoking nudists and who find his remarks insulting.

----------


## fr33

> Oh, come on.  Does Rand have to jump over tall buildings to get through to blinded Republicans AND babysit us?


He could do the former and not do the latter without insulting and sabotaging us. Once Rand loses maybe you'll understand what damage he's doing to the movement.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Oh, come on.  Does Rand have to jump over tall buildings to get through to blinded Republicans AND babysit us?


No, not parroting the typical MSM talking point bull$#@! would be just fine, though.

----------


## FrankRep

> He could do the former and not do the latter without insulting and sabotaging us. Once Rand loses maybe you'll understand what damage he's doing to the movement.


Sabotaging 1% of the Libertarian vote?

----------


## devil21

> This thread got WAYY Off topic.
> 
> The issue isn't about whether Rand is or is not a Libertarian or libertarian.  The issue is that he insulted everyone who does personally identify as libertarians and Libertarians by stereotyping us all as Nudist Potheads.  I think he owes us an apology.  I happen to be a big L libertarian who has donated large sums to Ron's and Rand's and Amash's and Massie's, and Kokesh's and Schiff's campaigns, as well as personally paying enough for two people to attend CPAC 2011.  Yet Rand Paul just called me, a non smoking, non drinking, drug free, clean cut, straight laced, commissioned officer of the US Army *a pot smoking nudist*.  I am not amused, and this kind of insult is neither statesmanlike, nor gentlemanly.  In the old days, I would be within the realm of honor to challenge him to a dual.  I politely ask that he not lump me in with libertine extremists lest I be tempted to lump his Baptist raised ass in with the Westboro church.


Did you read the original article this thread is based on?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...add_story.html

It's pretty obvious to me that Rand is distancing himself from the false perception that many evangelicals hold that libertarians are just anarchists.  It's a vestige of the (rather successful) media smear campaign against Ron, painting libertarians as drug addled lawless anarchists.  Many think this is true, though we know it's not.  Remember, we're not only fighting against the media and the party establishment, we're also fighting against some people's ignorance.  

(Fwiw the off topic stuff should definitely be split off)

----------


## fr33

> Sabotaging 1% of the Libertarian vote?


If that percentage is accurate, sure. I'm not afraid of losing elections. I'm used to it.

----------


## HigherVision

> This thread got WAYY Off topic.
> 
> The issue isn't about whether Rand is or is not a Libertarian or libertarian.  The issue is that he insulted everyone who does personally identify as libertarians and Libertarians by stereotyping us all as Nudist Potheads.  I think he owes us an apology.  I happen to be a big L libertarian who has donated large sums to Ron's and Rand's and Amash's and Massie's, and Kokesh's and Schiff's campaigns, as well as personally paying enough for two people to attend CPAC 2011.  Yet Rand Paul just called me, a non smoking, non drinking, drug free, clean cut, straight laced, commissioned officer of the US Army *a pot smoking nudist*.  I am not amused, and this kind of insult is neither statesmanlike, nor gentlemanly.  In the old days, I would be within the realm of honor to challenge him to a dual.  I politely ask that he not lump me in with libertine extremists lest I be tempted to lump his Baptist raised ass in with the Westboro church.


I'm passed taking this stuff personal myself. Most people who vote are scumbags, if you want to appeal to them you gotta be a scumbag. Scumbags gonna scumbag. At least Rand would be less bad than whoever would normally be elected in his place.

If we ever want full liberty we'll have to physically relocate and live together in the same place like they're doing in New Hampshire. It's the only possible way. Otherwise 'less bad' is what we're stuck with at best.

By the way if anyone wants to join my new group Nudist Pot Smokers For Rand Paul 2016 hit me up.

----------


## surf

> I'm not a republican.  I don't advocate endless warfare, and deficit spending.


Icymudpuppy wins this thread.

----------


## fr33

The media is going to call him a libertarian more often than they called his dad an isolationist.

----------


## phill4paul

> Sabotaging 1% of the Libertarian vote?


  Yeah. You don't need US. I get it. In fact I'm taking it to heart.

----------


## HigherVision

I don't really see why Rand needs to take the strategy of trashing libertarians in order to win over conservatives. Why not take a more positive approach of explaining how increased personal liberty is beneficial to the family unit instead? Ultimately I don't think it matters much though like I said. We just need to face the fact that we're the scurge of society and deserve to be denounced!

----------


## Natural Citizen



----------


## bolil

Uhhh Duh? Supporting an Israeli offensive as a 'defensive' act.  You idgits needed it spelled out for you.  CO OPT.... jesus $#@!ing christ.

Rand aint dad.  DURRRRR.  You people, you tyrants in just clothing, make me want to vomit.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Didn't read the whole thread. How many clothes do we have to wear, and does it vary based on the location? Formal dinners? McDonalds? The beach? The bathtub? Parties at Barney Frank's place? And do we have to smoke pot at the same time to be a libertarian, or is that part optional?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Wonder if Rand read this article?




> Why I’m a Conservative, Not a Libertarian
> 
> http://www.conservativehq.com/articl...ot-libertarian

----------


## FrankRep

> Yeah. You don't need US. I get it. In fact I'm taking it to heart.


Ron Paul was a Republican Constitutionalist. Remember that.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

I love how posters are attempting to downplay how much damage Rand is doing. 

1% of the LP...a few LP from Amash's district...LOL BULL$#@!.

----------


## phill4paul

> Ron Paul was a Republican Constitutionalist. Remember that.


  I remember that Ron didn't give lip service by pandering to special interests. I don't recall Ron ever equating libertarianism to walking around naked while doing drugs. Or that either should be considered wrong. Could you give me a quote on THAT one? I too was amazed in '88 when he ran forpresident under the Republican Constitutionalist party. Who'd of thunk.

----------


## HigherVision



----------


## fr33

> Ron Paul was a Republican Constitutionalist. Remember that.


He failed miserably at every POTUS run and many of us have no regrets in supporting him in those attempts. Remember that.

----------


## phill4paul

> 


 Bwahahaha!

----------


## phill4paul



----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *FrankRep*
> Ron Paul was a Republican Constitutionalist. Remember that.





> He failed miserably at every POTUS run and many of us have no regrets in supporting him in those attempts. Remember that.


"It's not like I'm just trying to get elected, I'm trying to change the course of history"

Ron succeeded. 

Remember that.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> 


Oh this is a gem  Love it!

----------


## FrankRep

> He failed miserably at every POTUS run and many of us have no regrets in supporting him in those attempts. Remember that.


Rand Paul is presidential material and is well liked in the GOP. Don't screw it up for him.

----------


## phill4paul

> Rand Paul is presidential material and is well liked in the GOP. Don't screw it up for him.


  It's his to be lost. The choices he makes, the statements he makes, is all on him.

----------


## fr33

> Rand Paul is presidential material and is well liked in the GOP. Don't screw it up for him.


Stop bashing the base.It's not like I'm abandoning him but his words abandon me. There is no need for this.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Rand Paul is presidential material and is well liked in the GOP. Don't screw it up for him.


We don't have to screw it up for him. He's doing a great job of that on his own.

----------


## FrankRep

> We don't have to screw it up for him. He's doing a great job of that on his own.


Rand Paul's biggest screw up was going soft on Illegal Immigration.

----------


## phill4paul

> Rand Paul's biggest screw up was going soft on Illegal Immigration.


  Yep. That's the one. Darn tootin'! That's what did it for me.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Rand Paul's biggest screw up was going soft on Illegal Immigration.


Oh I don't know...being perfectly fine with Israel's holocaust of Palestinians is pretty bad:

"If somebody asked me where to build in Israel, I would say it's none of my business," Paul told reporters in Israel. "What I think is wrong is for American politicians to come to Jerusalem and say 'You shouldn't be building in this neighborhood'…or for American politicians to come over and tell you that you need to give the Golan Heights back."

----------


## supermario21

Why should we tell Israel to give land to Palestine? We should revoke our aid to Israel and let them do whatever they want.

----------


## talkingpointes

> Rand Paul's biggest screw up was going soft on Illegal Immigration.


What do you want him to do - don't you want him to win a majority. 11% of this country is dependent on whoever gets immigration. /sarc

only 15-20% of the country votes.

----------


## FrankRep

> Oh I don't know...being perfectly fine with Israel's holocaust of Palestinians is pretty bad:
> 
> "If somebody asked me where to build in Israel, I would say it's none of my business," Paul told reporters in Israel. "What I think is wrong is for American politicians to come to Jerusalem and say 'You shouldn't be building in this neighborhood'…or for American politicians to come over and tell you that you need to give the Golan Heights back."


You may not know this, but the GOP supports Israel.

----------


## FrankRep

> What do you want him to do - don't you want him to win a majority. 11% of this country is dependent on whoever gets immigration. /sarc
> 
> only 15-20% of the country votes.


Illegal Immigrants won't vote for the GOP anyway, no matter how much you suck up to them.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Why should we tell Israel to give land to Palestine? We should revoke our aid to Israel and let them do whatever they want.


We shouldn't. But ignoring Israel's holocaust of the Palestinians and pretending it's an issue of people telling Israel what to do with their own land is bull$#@!.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> You may not know this, but the GOP supports Israel.


How does that make it right?

----------


## FrankRep

> How does that make it right?


You must pick your battles wisely. If you battle Israel, you will lose.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> You must pick your battles wisely. If you battle Israel, you will lose.


I'd rather bring light to their holocaust of Palestinians than support it to win an election.

----------


## FrankRep

> I'd rather bring light to their holocaust of Palestinians than support it to win an election.


Thankfully Ron Paul and Rand Paul disagree with you.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Thankfully Ron Paul and Rand Paul disagree with you.


That's nice.

----------


## phill4paul

> Thankfully Ron Paul and Rand Paul disagree with you.


  You've been a member of RPF since 2007 and you can, straight faced, say that Ron Paul disagrees? Christ, I'm not even going to copy paste what RON has to say about the situation. It wouldn't matter to you anyway.

----------


## FrankRep

> You've been a member of RPF since 2007 and you can, straight faced, say that Ron Paul disagrees? Christ, I'm not even going to copy paste what RON has to say about the situation. It wouldn't matter to you anyway.



*Ron Paul: Israel is Our Close Friend*
May 19, 2011

*Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel*
December 07, 2011

----------


## phill4paul

> *Ron Paul: Israel is Our Close Friend*
> May 19, 2011
> 
> *Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel*
> December 07, 2011


 http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...vented-people/

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/ron-pa...palestine.html

http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/01/09...he-aggressors/

----------


## FrankRep

> http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...vented-people/
> 
> http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/ron-pa...palestine.html
> 
> http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/01/09...he-aggressors/


Poor selection of articles. 

1.) Palestinians are obviously not an "invented people."
2.) I agree with Ron Paul, lets stop interfering in Middle East politics.
3.) Israel beefed up security around Israel/Gaza Strip because of all the Palestinian suicide bombers.

----------


## phill4paul

> Poor selection of articles. 
> 
> 1.) Palestinians are obviously not an "invented people."
> 2.) I agree with Ron Paul, lets stop interfering in Middle East politics.
> 3.) Israel beefed up security around Israel/Gaza Strip because of all the Palestinian suicide bombers.



  Not so much. The first two were a set up leading into the proclamation that Palestinians are in a concentration camp. Do you have a problem with the Warsaw uprising?

----------


## jtstellar

"i'm not a libertarian"

"i'm a libertarian republican"

i know.. right?  huge difference.. 300 posts, the sky must be falling

pathetic

people like kokesh are busy organizing their own to show what it means to be real libertarians in his world, while others are busy bitching about there not being good enough leaders they like lying around for them to follow

----------


## lakerssuck92

To see where Paul stands look at his voting record. It is the BEST in the Senate and maybe only Amash is the one person who is better than him from the House. There is no doubt he is on our side and is with us. We would be crazy not to back him with everything we have...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Guys, he has to attract PRIMARY voters.  When he wins the Primary he'll dig deeper to his roots to expose his libertarian values in order to pull the moderates away from his opponent.


It's not necessary to insult one group of people while trying to attract another.

----------


## rich34

Ron basically said the same thing over and over.  "I'm a republican and always been a republican..."

Not sure how Rand saying this is any different.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron basically said the same thing over and over.  "I'm a republican and always been a republican..."
> 
> Not sure how Rand saying this is any different.


Still missing the point.





> This thread got WAYY Off topic.
> 
> The issue isn't about whether Rand is or is not a Libertarian or libertarian. The issue is that he insulted everyone who does personally identify as libertarians and Libertarians by stereotyping us all as Nudist Potheads. I think he owes us an apology. I happen to be a big L libertarian who has donated large sums to Ron's and Rand's and Amash's and Massie's, and Kokesh's and Schiff's campaigns, as well as personally paying enough for two people to attend CPAC 2011. Yet Rand Paul just called me, a non smoking, non drinking, drug free, clean cut, straight laced, commissioned officer of the US Army *a pot smoking nudist*. I am not amused, and this kind of insult is neither statesmanlike, nor gentlemanly. In the old days, I would be within the realm of honor to challenge him to a dual. I politely ask that he not lump me in with libertine extremists lest I be tempted to lump his Baptist raised ass in with the Westboro church.

----------


## AlexAmore

Oh noes Rand Paul won't pledge allegiance to our collectivist group-think called "libertarianism". What happened to individualism? 

I wouldn't call myself a libertarian either without first qualifying myself as pro-life, as many libertarians aren't. Rand can't let something like that happen either.

----------


## Brett85

> Oh noes Rand Paul won't pledge allegiance to our collectivist group-think called "libertarianism". What happened to individualism? 
> 
> I wouldn't call myself a libertarian either without first qualifying myself as pro-life, as many libertarians aren't. Rand can't let something like that happen either.


Do you think it's possible to support limited government in any form if you support the war on drugs?  Unlike what others have said, this is a major issue given the amount of money we spend keeping these people in prison.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Oh noes Rand Paul won't pledge allegiance to our collectivist group-think called "libertarianism". What happened to individualism? 
> 
> I wouldn't call myself a libertarian either without first qualifying myself as pro-life, as many libertarians aren't. Rand can't let something like that happen either.


*Still* missing the point.  

No one suggested that he should "pledge allegiance" to anything or anyone. 

Neither is anyone suggesting he should call himself anything other than what he is.

Please go back and read Icymudpuppy's post, quoted in my post #315.

----------


## FrankRep

> Ron basically said the same thing over and over.  "I'm a republican and always been a republican..."
> 
> Not sure how Rand saying this is any different.


Ron Paul screwed himself by running and talking like a Libertarian. 

Rand Paul has always been a Republican and talks Conservative.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand Paul has always been a Republican and talks Conservative.


Rand calls himself a "Constitutional Conservative," but yet will never advocate ending the federal war on drugs.  What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to ban any substance?

----------


## FrankRep

> Do you think it's possible to support limited government in any form if you support the war on drugs?  Unlike what others have said, this is a major issue given the amount of money we spend keeping these people in prison.





> Rand calls himself a "Constitutional Conservative," but yet will never advocate ending the federal war on drugs.  What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to ban any substance?



You can't win the nomination with "Legalize Drugs" in your platform. In fact, that's used as a smear to discredit a candidate.

----------


## Brett85

> You can't win the nomination with "Legalize Drugs" in your platform. In fact, that's used as a smear to discredit a candidate.


Um, no one is saying that he should advocate "drug legalization."  But why not just take the Constitutional position, which is that the states have jurisdicition over this issue and not the federal government?  That has nothing to do with "legalization."  This is the argument he makes in regards to the marriage issue.  I'm not exactly sure why he thinks that marriage should be a state issue but drug policy shouldn't be.

----------


## osan

It seems my suspicions about Rand Paul are proving well enough founded.  He is not 10% the man his father is, thus far.

Sad.

----------


## AlexAmore

> This thread got WAYY Off topic.
> 
> The issue isn't about whether Rand is or is not a Libertarian or libertarian.  The issue is that he insulted everyone who does personally *identify* as libertarians and Libertarians by stereotyping us all as Nudist Potheads.  I think he owes us an apology.  I happen to be a big L libertarian who has donated large sums to Ron's and Rand's and Amash's and Massie's, and Kokesh's and Schiff's campaigns, as well as personally paying enough for two people to attend CPAC 2011.  Yet Rand Paul just called me, a non smoking, non drinking, drug free, clean cut, straight laced, commissioned officer of the US Army *a pot smoking nudist*.  I am not amused, and this kind of insult is neither statesmanlike, nor gentlemanly.  In the old days, I would be within the realm of honor to challenge him to a dual.  I politely ask that he not lump me in with libertine extremists lest I be tempted to lump his Baptist raised ass in with the Westboro church.


Libertarians don't recognize collectives and therefore should not *identify* with any collective. Libertarianism is a just a label for a bunch of political beliefs. How Rand merely saying libertarians are nudist potheads should intellectually impact a "libertarian" in the slightest is beyond me.

Stop identifying yourself with any collective, it's all egoic masturbation. You're an individual. Rand Paul never actually insulted you. Rand Paul said:

"I’m not advocating *everyone* go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot." Is that REALLY an insult? I'm not _advocating_? We need more grit in this society. He's not saying nudist potheads are bad, he's just saying he's not trying to convert *everyone* into a nudist pothead.

In society, elections and debates are often about converting people to your side of thinking in morals, philosophies, and life styles. Libertarianism is so different that people don't realize we just want to leave them alone. So instead of Rand debating this for 8 hours straight with probably no headway, he's going the path of least resistance and good for him. He's trying to win a presidency.

----------


## July

Look on the bright side, if he's not labeling himself a 'libertarian' then he can't taint the brand, or whatever your version of the brand happens to be. 

It's a stereotype, and it's a crappy thing to stereotype... shame on Rand for stereotyping.

Though, there is a grain of truth in the sense that there are _some_ libertarians who would prefer libertarianism to remain a counter culture movement, or who oppose all religion and dislike social conservatives and Republicans, or who adamantly refuse to associate with conservatives, etc. I think Rand was trying to distinguish himself and his brand of libertarian Republicanism as not being like that.... Or in other words, not contrary to social conservative values, and actually welcoming to evangelicals, etc.  It's not really a new argument either, libertarians have been fighting over this sort of thing since at least the 90s. Some libertarians decided they were going to brand libertarianism as a libertine and socially liberal movement, in order to attract progressives, etc. Other libertarians kinda went the other direction and made a coalition with paleocons, and wanted to stay associated with the Old Right. So there has been this split in thinking. Ron did a lot to bring many libertarians together, so I guess it's sad to see Rand kinda driving a wedge there. I'll take it with a grain of salt though, as I think he's done a lot to reach out to the wider libertarian demographic in the past.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You may not know this, but the GOP supports Israel.


Which is why, I won't be voting for the GOP.

Let em die. The country is ruined.

God bless Israel.

----------


## LibertyRevolution

Rand is no Ron... Ron believes in principles before politics, Rand does not. 
Rand will say what he needs to say to get republican votes.
Rand lost my vote the day he endorsed Romney while his father was still running for president.
In losing my vote, he gained 100 others... So I guess go him..

I will not vote for him in the primary, as I have gone back to the Libertarian Party. 
If Rand is on the ballot for the general election, he will get my vote, other than that I cannot help him.

----------


## FrankRep

> Um, no one is saying that he should advocate "drug legalization."  But why not just take the Constitutional position, which is that the states have jurisdicition over this issue and not the federal government?  That has nothing to do with "legalization."  This is the argument he makes in regards to the marriage issue.  I'm not exactly sure why he thinks that marriage should be a state issue but drug policy shouldn't be.


Again, you must choose your battles wisely. You can't fix everything at once.

----------


## FrankRep

> Rand is no Ron... Ron believes in principles before politics, Rand does not. 
> Rand will say what he needs to say to get republican votes.
> Rand lost my vote the day he endorsed Romney while his father was still running for president.
> In losing my vote, he gained 100 others... So I guess go him..
> 
> I will not vote for him in the primary, as I have gone back to the Libertarian Party. 
> If Rand is on the ballot for the general election, he will get my vote, other than that I cannot help him.



Good luck with your 1% of the vote.

----------


## cero

> Um, no one is saying that he should advocate "drug legalization."  But why not just take the Constitutional position, which is that the states have jurisdicition over this issue and not the federal government?  That has nothing to do with "legalization."  This is the argument he makes in regards to the marriage issue.  I'm not exactly sure why he thinks that marriage should be a state issue but drug policy shouldn't be.


wait when did rand say the drug war wasn't a state issue? and that it should be left to the federal government?
sorry kinda late to all of this.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Overall, I think this is a healthy thing to really get down to brass tacts and flush out those that weren't going to lend a hand to the campaign anyway. The cherry pickers and nickel and dimers are better off in the LP or other irrelevant avenues. Been there, done that for years and it was completely unproductive. Ron said "let it not be said that we did nothing", so if he gives his blessings to Rand's campaign as the main way to stop the federal behemoth and roll things back, then all the "good is the enemy of the perfect" folks can start ripping Ron as well - if ya got the guts. That said, none of the fragile cherry pickers stop by this subforum unless there's a potential way to go negative and they relish every opportunity. Conversely, there's maybe one that I can think of that will actually give credit, none of other vocal minority will.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Good luck with your 1% of the vote.


Good luck with your 47% of the vote.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Good luck with your 47% of the vote.


More than likely it will be a republican year in most cases, provided they don't kill their down ticket races with a crappy top of.

----------


## cero

> Good luck with your 47% of the vote.


man stop being a little bitch, and tell me where in his voting record Rand has let you down?

>Stops Iran sanction bill that would lead to troops without congressional approval
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_1386042.html

>Blocks marijuana ban
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_Senat...na_legislation

>Sen. Rand Paul joins Oregon Sen. Wyden's push for legal hemp
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/06/1...regon-sen.html

>Democratic majority leader Harry Reid Blocks Rand Paul’s Filibuster of the PATRIOT Act
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/h...132752391.html

>Introduced legislation that would prohibit law enforcement agencies from using unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct surveillance without a warrant.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/1...rone-surveilla
nce/

>Rand Paul Breaks With Top Romney Legal Adviser, Endorses Constitutional Right To Contraception
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...omney-legal-ad
viser-endorses-constitutional-right-to-contraception/

>Anti-Lobbying bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFe7k...11FAAAAAAAAAAA

>Rand Paul Outlines his support for Internet Freedom, keeping the internet unregulated without SOPA and CISPA legislation. (Starts at 15:00)
http://www.heritage.org/events/2012/...ternet-freedom

>Rand Paul tries to end the Iraq war
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...n=1&vote=00211

>Rand Paul only no agaisnt preemptive war with Iran 
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approve...044224956.html


the only thing I can think of is his vote for sanctions on Iran, but then again, he voted against more of them, and he voted against preemptive war with Iran, more than balances right? (and let me remind you he was the only one to vote no)

----------


## jmdrake

I don't have the energy to do it right now, but sometime in the near future I will give my full reasons why I don't give a flying fig about anything Rand says and haven't since 2010.  Here's the cliff notes version.  Nothing that he's said since then is nearly as shocking as some of the stuff he said while running for senate in the first place.  It's just that 95% of y'all weren't paying attention and the rest didn't seem to care.  Anyway, I made peace with it by coming to the legitimate conclusion that he couldn't possibly mean what he was saying.  I also came to the conclusion that Ron was playing along, because Ron could have busted him and didn't.  Yes, that's right.  I said it.  Neither of the Pauls are above playing politics to achieve their goals.  I'm happy to (or grumpily accepting of) going along because I still believe we ultimately share the same goals.  For those that just can't deal with that, I understand.  At one point I couldn't.  But everyone please take off the rose colored PolyAnna glasses and keep your eyes open to what's actually going on!

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I will not vote for him in the primary, as I have gone back to the Libertarian Party. 
> If Rand is on the ballot for the general election, he will get my vote, other than that I cannot help him.





> Which is why, I won't be voting for the GOP.
> Let em die. The country is ruined.
> God bless Israel.


This is why we lose. You think the Republican party was neoconservative from the very beginning? Nope. Neither Democrats, nor Republicans were originally neoconservative. What the neocons did is they infiltrated the two major parties, and reshaped them to their liking. That's how we got a "bipartisan consensus" for War; a Welfare-Warfare state. 

The solution for us IMO is to emulate the neocons. lol 

Instead of crowding in on each other in the Libertarian ghetto, we must go outside, we must engage people, we must make our ideas popular. Right-libertarians like Rand Paul should take over the GOP. Those who allign more with the left (Reason magazine types) should make their voices heard in the Democratic party. That's how we can build a bipartisan consensus for Peace.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I don't have the energy to do it right now, but sometime in the near future I will give my full reasons why I don't give a flying fig about anything Rand says and haven't since 2010.  Here's the cliff notes version.  Nothing that he's said since then is nearly as shocking as some of the stuff he said while running for senate in the first place.  It's just that 95% of y'all weren't paying attention and the rest didn't seem to care.  Anyway, I made peace with it by coming to the legitimate conclusion that he couldn't possibly mean what he was saying.  I also came to the conclusion that Ron was playing along, because Ron could have busted him and didn't.  Yes, that's right.  I said it.  Neither of the Pauls are above playing politics to achieve their goals.  I'm happy to (or grumpily accepting of) going along because I still believe we ultimately share the same goals.  For those that just can't deal with that, I understand.  At one point I couldn't.  But everyone please take off the rose colored PolyAnna glasses and keep your eyes open to what's actually going on!


Kinda how I see it but I can't help from sniping when these fragile fillies get all worked up over rhetoric when it's the voting record that counts. It's like they want to be like the mainstream media and demagogue his lingo rather than focusing on his actions. Simply pathetic, shame on them.

----------


## cero

> I don't have the energy to do it right now, but sometime in the near future I will give my full reasons why I don't give a flying fig about anything Rand says and haven't since 2010.  Here's the cliff notes version.  *Nothing that he's said* since then is nearly as shocking as some of the stuff he said while running for senate in the first place.  It's just that 95% of y'all weren't paying attention and the rest didn't seem to care.  Anyway, I made peace with it by coming to the legitimate conclusion that he couldn't possibly mean what he was saying.  I also came to the conclusion that Ron was playing along, because Ron could have busted him and didn't.  Yes, that's right.  I said it.  Neither of the Pauls are above playing politics to achieve their goals.  I'm happy to (or grumpily accepting of) going along because I still believe we ultimately share the same goals.  For those that just can't deal with that, I understand.  At one point I couldn't.  But everyone please take off the rose colored PolyAnna glasses and keep your eyes open to what's actually going on!



can you point me to something in his voting record, that is as "shocking" to you as some of the things he has said?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> More than likely it will be a republican year in most cases, provided they don't kill their down ticket races with a crappy top of.


Good for them. Considering the endless wars and growing police state, should I celebrate? It _really_ wouldn't matter either way. You guys keep doing your partisan circle jerk, I'll stick to principles, don't come asking for my support when a draft is implemented or drones are flying overhead.

As I said, God bless Israel. 

I can't wait.

----------


## jmdrake

> can you point me to something in his voting record, that is as "shocking" to you as some of the things he has said?
> are words more important to you than actions?


Did you just miss where I said this?

 Anyway, I made peace with it by coming to the legitimate conclusion that he couldn't possibly mean what he was saying. 

Edit: And for the record, I do think it is important to keep Rand's feet to the fire when he says something off the wall.  That maintains his credibility and ours.  If we don't, and some of our enemies parrot his words, what do we say then?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> You guys keep doing your partisan circle jerk, I'll stick to principles, don't come asking for my support when a draft is implemented or drones are flying overhead.


We're trying to advance those principles in the GOP and we're having success. Why would another person that values these same principles not help us out. It's one thing to do the usual freak out over some of Rand's terms but why not do your part in restoring the GOP to liberty principles like Ron advised as far back as the Rally for the Republic in 2008? The only difference here is that most of us see what Rand is doing and can stomach it. Even if that's not your thing, help out on the leadership battles in your state and local parties.

----------


## cero

> Did you just miss where I said this?
> 
>  Anyway, I made peace with it by coming to the legitimate conclusion that he couldn't possibly mean what he was saying.


I just find it retarded that people *HERE* get swayed by wtf he is saying rather than by looking at his voting record.
but I agree, rand has to SAY and pander, to win.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Did you just miss where I said this?
> 
>  Anyway, I made peace with it by coming to the legitimate conclusion that he couldn't possibly mean what he was saying.


Clearly the man is using super consultants to tailor his positions into tidbits that can easily be swallowed by targeted groups. This, I think, is where some people here are having their issues with him.

----------


## erowe1

I assume he means what he says. And I'm fine with it.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I assume he means what he says. And I'm fine with it.


I assume he does as well, and I'm not. I can at least respect that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This thread got WAYY Off topic.
> 
> The issue isn't about whether Rand is or is not a Libertarian or libertarian.  The issue is that he insulted everyone who does personally identify as libertarians and Libertarians by stereotyping us all as Nudist Potheads.  I think he owes us an apology.  I happen to be a big L libertarian who has donated large sums to Ron's and Rand's and Amash's and Massie's, and Kokesh's and Schiff's campaigns, as well as personally paying enough for two people to attend CPAC 2011.  Yet Rand Paul just called me, a non smoking, non drinking, drug free, clean cut, straight laced, commissioned officer of the US Army *a pot smoking nudist*.  I am not amused, and this kind of insult is neither statesmanlike, nor gentlemanly.  In the old days, I would be within the realm of honor to challenge him to a dual.  I politely ask that he not lump me in with libertine extremists lest I be tempted to lump his Baptist raised ass in with the Westboro church.


Yeah, this... even though Rand is a Presbyterian now, and lumping Rand in with the WBC would be offensive to a lot of people other than just Rand (Including myself, since I am a Baptist).





> Ron Paul was a Republican Constitutionalist. Remember that.


Who supported libertarian political viewpoints.




> I remember that Ron didn't give lip service by pandering to special interests. I don't recall Ron ever equating libertarianism to walking around naked while doing drugs. Or that either should be considered wrong. Could you give me a quote on THAT one? I too was amazed in '88 when he ran forpresident under the Republican Constitutionalist party. Who'd of thunk.


Parties don't matter.  Ron Paul was perfectly clear that he didn't agree with the GOP all the time.




> 


LOL!




> Rand Paul's biggest screw up was going soft on Illegal Immigration.





> Yep. That's the one. Darn tootin'! That's what did it for me.


Seriously though, why do people care so much about this one?  Why do we want immigration quotas anyway?  I can understand keeping an obviously dangerous Al Qeida agent or something out, but in general, what's the point?

What Rand Paul said about that issue is 100% correct.  You aren't going to deport 11 million people.  And even if, hypothetically, the government should do that , they still can't.




> Oh I don't know...being perfectly fine with Israel's holocaust of Palestinians is pretty bad:
> 
> "If somebody asked me where to build in Israel, I would say it's none of my business," Paul told reporters in Israel. "What I think is wrong is for American politicians to come to Jerusalem and say 'You shouldn't be building in this neighborhood'…or for American politicians to come over and tell you that you need to give the Golan Heights back."


Its not America's job to tell Israel what to do, even if they are wrong.  Rand is correct on this one.  Maybe he isn't as vocal as he should be about the Palestinian situation, but that's really not his job as the President.  He should cut aid and let them do what they want.




> Why should we tell Israel to give land to Palestine? We should revoke our aid to Israel and let them do whatever they want.


This!




> We shouldn't. But ignoring Israel's holocaust of the Palestinians and pretending it's an issue of people telling Israel what to do with their own land is bull$#@!.


I don't care if its their land or not, it isn't our job to keep them out anymore than its our job to help them.




> Thankfully Ron Paul and Rand Paul disagree with you.


Ron Paul has always been much less political than Rand.  And I say that as  an (Occasionally reluctant) Rand supporter.




> You've been a member of RPF since 2007 and you can, straight faced, say that Ron Paul disagrees? Christ, I'm not even going to copy paste what RON has to say about the situation. It wouldn't matter to you anyway.


Ron Paul probably agrees with you, but it was never his main concern.  The main concern was always getting us out of the situation.



> Oh noes Rand Paul won't pledge allegiance to our collectivist group-think called "libertarianism". What happened to individualism? 
> 
> I wouldn't call myself a libertarian either without first qualifying myself as pro-life, as many libertarians aren't. Rand can't let something like that happen either.


I usually qualify myself as pro-life too.




> Do you think it's possible to support limited government in any form i*f you support the war on drugs? * Unlike what others have said, this is a major issue given the amount of money we spend keeping these people in prison.


Not if you support it at the Federal level.  If you support it at the state level.... well then, its likely you are a real conservative.  Which is an imperfect but still better place to be...






> Rand calls himself a "Constitutional Conservative," but yet will never advocate ending the federal war on drugs.  What part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to ban any substance?


"General Welfare"

"Commerce Clause"


"Necessary and Properr Clause."



/Sarc....

Seriously though, if those clauses were as broad as the "Implied Powers" wingnuts believe them to be, the 10th amendment repealed all of them, the same way the 21st amendment repeals the 18th.




> Again, you must choose your battles wisely. You can't fix everything at once.


While true, 60% of Republicans are opposed  to a FEDERAL ban on marijuana.  Its time...



> wait when did rand say the drug war wasn't a state issue? and that it should be left to the federal government?
> sorry kinda late to all of this.


He didn't straight up say it, but he implied it.  I don't know if he really believes it, but it was his implication that the only thing he wanted to change was penaltties.




> Overall, I think this is a healthy thing to really get down to brass tacts and flush out those that weren't going to lend a hand to the campaign anyway. The cherry pickers and nickel and dimers are better off in the LP or other irrelevant avenues. Been there, done that for years and it was completely unproductive. Ron said "let it not be said that we did nothing", so if he gives his blessings to Rand's campaign as the main way to stop the federal behemoth and roll things back, then all the "good is the enemy of the perfect" folks can start ripping Ron as well - if ya got the guts. That said, none of the fragile cherry pickers stop by this subforum unless there's a potential way to go negative and they relish every opportunity. Conversely, there's maybe one that I can think of that will actually give credit, none of other vocal minority will.


I fully expect that Ron will campaign for his son, and I fully expect Ron will endorse him.  That's completely fine.  Unless he seriously disappoints me between now and 2016, I expect to support him too.  But I hope Ron won't refrain from  criticizing Rand when he's wrong.  That I will not do.



> More than likely it will be a republican year in most cases, provided they don't kill their down ticket races with a crappy top of.


ANYONE other than Rand is crap...




> man stop being a little bitch, and tell me where in his voting record Rand has let you down?
> 
> >Stops Iran sanction bill that would lead to troops without congressional approval
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_1386042.html
> 
> >Blocks marijuana ban
> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/US_Senat...na_legislation
> 
> >Sen. Rand Paul joins Oregon Sen. Wyden's push for legal hemp
> ...


I don't know anything about the lobbying bill, but I  know Rand is incorrect that there is any kind of Federal level "Right to contraception."



> I don't have the energy to do it right now, but sometime in the near future I will give my full reasons why I don't give a flying fig about anything Rand says and haven't since 2010.  Here's the cliff notes version.  Nothing that he's said since then is nearly as shocking as some of the stuff he said while running for senate in the first place.  It's just that 95% of y'all weren't paying attention and the rest didn't seem to care.  Anyway, I made peace with it by coming to the legitimate conclusion that he couldn't possibly mean what he was saying.  I also came to the conclusion that Ron was playing along, because Ron could have busted him and didn't.  Yes, that's right.  I said it.  Neither of the Pauls are above playing politics to achieve their goals.  I'm happy to (or grumpily accepting of) going along because I still believe we ultimately share the same goals.  For those that just can't deal with that, I understand.  At one point I couldn't.  But everyone please take off the rose colored PolyAnna glasses and keep your eyes open to what's actually going on!


That Ron isn't going to screw over his son's campaign doesn't necessarily mean he supports the strategy.  Ron Paul did give endorsements, which don't really matter anyway, but he never outright lied for a political purpose. Rand has come close to that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Libertarians don't recognize collectives and therefore should not *identify* with any collective. Libertarianism is a just a label for a bunch of political beliefs. How Rand merely saying libertarians are nudist potheads should intellectually impact a "libertarian" in the slightest is beyond me.


It's not about how it impacts those of us who consider ourselves libertarians. 

It's about purposely painting libertarians as crazy kooks who not only smoke pot but run around naked while doing so in order to distance himself from the label.  Way to advance the liberty movement, Rand.  Not much chance we can expect those in his audience to join us on board after that description!  He set the education process back about 5 years, but it's all good to Randroids as long as he gets elected.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It's not about how it impacts those of us who consider ourselves libertarians. 
> 
> It's about purposely painting libertarians as crazy kooks who not only smoke pot but run around naked while doing so in order to distance himself from the label.  Way to advance the liberty movement, Rand.  Not much chance we can expect those in his audience to join us on board after that description!  He set the education process back about 5 years, but it's all good to *Randroids* as long as he gets elected.


But, if you criticize anything the all-holy son of Ron Paul says, you must hate him, and his dad too!


I don't get why people have to make this into a "With us or against us" thing.  I can support 80% of what Rand Paul does, and I can vote for him based on that, and I can encourage others to do so, without flat out worshipping the ground he walks on and defending every stupid comment he makes.

Rand Paul is trying to create a coalition of diametrically oppose ideologies.  The Republicans who support limited government (Let alone the libertarians who are outside the GOP that might vote for Rand if he plays his cards right) and the Republicans who support big government cannot be sustained in a sustainable coalition, IMO.  He's trying to walk on a tightrope in order to get both, but I question whether or not his tightrope even still exists.  He's going to lose one or the other.  If he chooses to throw his liberty-loving base, he will lose me as well.

Until then, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and I realize that trying to toe the line like this can't be done without the occasional stupid comment.  I still don't like it.

----------


## cero

> Way to advance the liberty movement, Rand.


you are the reason why I don't go to the daily paul anymore, I hope that is sarcasm, otherwise you are a $#@!ing tool.

----------


## erowe1

> It's not about how it impacts those of us who consider ourselves libertarians. 
> 
> It's about purposely painting libertarians as crazy kooks who not only smoke pot but run around naked while doing so in order to distance himself from the label.


It's not painting anyone as anything.

Words can have lots of meanings. One of the meanings of "libertarian" is "someone who runs around naked smoking pot." Rand merely said that, when using that definition of the word "libertarian," he's not one.

----------


## tsai3904

> I'm not exactly sure why he thinks that marriage should be a state issue but drug policy shouldn't be.


I've seen you repeat this many times now after I've shown you clips of his exact words saying drug policy should be a state issue.  Why do you keep repeating this?

Just because he doesn't make this argument every time he talks about drugs doesn't mean it's not his belief.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> you are the reason why I don't go to the daily paul anymore, I hope that is sarcasm, otherwise you are a $#@!ing tool.


He's being sarcastic.  




> It's not painting anyone as anything.
> 
> Words can have lots of meanings. One of the meanings of "libertarian" is "someone who runs around naked smoking pot." Rand merely said that, when using that definition of the word "libertarian," he's not one.


And its a stupid definition that Rand shouldn't be encouraging.

----------


## erowe1

> And its a stupid definition that Rand shouldn't be encouraging.


I don't see why. It's a definition that some people have. And he's looking for a way to disavow the label. He can't disavow it using a definition that actually does apply to him. So he has to use a definition that doesn't apply to him. Good move, I say.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It's not painting anyone as anything.
> 
> Words can have lots of meanings. *One of the meanings of "libertarian" is "someone who runs around naked smoking pot."* Rand merely said that, when using that definition of the word "libertarian," he's not one.


Can you find that for me in any dictionary? 

Good Lord, how would you like it if I said "one of the meanings of 'conservative' is someone who is a war-mongering misogynist"?  (after all, Rush Limbaugh calls himself a "conservative" so that _must_ be true!)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't see why. It's a definition that some people have. And he's looking for a way to disavow the label. He can't disavow it using a definition that actually does apply to him. So he has to use a definition that doesn't apply to him. Good move, I say.


Why can't he say something more like "Some people believe that a libertarian is someone who runs around naked and smokes pot, and I don't agree with doing that, but I would defend someone's legal right to be an idiot, and if defending someone's legal right to be an idiot makes me a libertarian, I proudly accept the label."

OK, he can't say that because he doesn't believe it

----------


## jmdrake

> I assume he means what he says. And I'm fine with it.


Are you sure about that?  http://youtu.be/Yn52STCysYI?t=16m57s

There's no way in hell Rand really means that he has a problem if evidence obtained from torture can be used against that person.  But that's kinda sorta what he said.  And if that is what he meant, I couldn't support him.  I don't know how anyone else could.  But his voting record and statements he's said since then tell mean he didn't mean that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Can you find that for me in any dictionary? 
> 
> Good Lord, how would you like it if I said "one of the meanings of 'conservative' is someone who is a war-mongering misogynist"?  (after all, Rush Limbaugh calls himself a "conservative" so that _must_ be true!)


It won't let me +rep you again, but you basically own the thread now.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Words can have lots of meanings. One of the meanings of "libertarian" is "someone who runs around naked smoking pot." Rand merely said that, when using that definition of the word "libertarian," he's not one.


Many libertarians also support abortion and gay marriage, and if this the definition of Libertarianism, Rand Paul doesn't fit it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Why can't he say something more like "Some people believe that a libertarian is someone who runs around naked and smokes pot, and *I don't agree with doing that*, but I would defend someone's legal right to be an idiot, and if defending someone's legal right to be an idiot makes me a libertarian, I proudly accept the label."
> 
> OK, he can't say that because he doesn't believe it


Ah, but he _does_ believe in doing that....


> The strangest episode of Paul's time at Baylor occurred one afternoon in 1983 (although memories about all of these events are understandably a bit hazy, so the date might be slightly off), when he and a NoZe brother paid a visit to a female student who was one of Paul's teammates on the Baylor swim team. According to this woman, who requested anonymity because of her current job as a clinical psychologist, "He and Randy came to my house, they knocked on my door, and then they blindfolded me, tied me up, and put me in their car. They took me to their apartment and tried to force me to take bong hits. *They'd been smoking pot.*" After the woman refused to smoke with them, Paul and his friend put her back in their car and drove to the countryside outside of Waco, where they stopped near a creek. "They told me their god was 'Aqua Buddha' and that I needed to bow down and worship him," the woman recalls. "They blindfolded me and made me bow down to 'Aqua Buddha' in the creek. I had to say, 'I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.' At Baylor, there were people actively going around trying to save you and we had to go to chapel, so worshiping idols was a big no-no."




Read More http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/0...#ixzz2TNRYkD00

----------


## erowe1

> Can you find that for me in any dictionary?


No. But people use the word that way.




> Good Lord, how would you like it if I said "one of the meanings of 'conservative' is someone who is a war-mongering misogynist"?  (after all, Rush Limbaugh calls himself a "conservative" so that _must_ be true!)


If he were trying to find a way to say he's not a conservative, then I'd be fine with him doing that.

----------


## jmdrake

> That Ron isn't going to screw over his son's campaign doesn't necessarily mean he supports the strategy.  Ron Paul did give endorsements, which don't really matter anyway, but he never outright lied for a political purpose. Rand has come close to that.


The strategy was laid out long before Rand even thought about running for office in a speech by G. Edward Griffin.  You saw the beginning of the strategy when the CFL *with Ron Paul's blessing* endorsed Ken Buck.  People thought the CFL had been "hijacked" until Ron clarified that he indeed approved the move.  Folks who think Ron is above playing politics are kidding themselves.  But that's okay.  People seeing Ron and Rand as "different" serves the strategy.

----------


## erowe1

> Why can't he say something more like "Some people believe that a libertarian is someone who runs around naked and smokes pot, and I don't agree with doing that, but I would defend someone's legal right to be an idiot, and if defending someone's legal right to be an idiot makes me a libertarian, I proudly accept the label."
> 
> OK, he can't say that because he doesn't believe it


The whole point is to reject the label, not proudly accept it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The whole point is to reject the label, not proudly accept it.


If what you say is true, this stops all the talk about him being "just like his Dad".  

His Dad proudly wore that label in 1988, and it's a heckuva lot better label than "conservative" considering what the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin et al have done to (successfully, in the mind of most people) hijack *that* label.

----------


## erowe1

The more I think about what he said, the more clear it is that the only people he threw under the bus, if anyone, are those people who consider themselves libertarians, and who mean by that label that they are pot smoking nudists. If I were one of those people, I'd be happy to take the fall for him.

----------


## erowe1

> If what you say is true, this stops all the talk about him being "just like his Dad".


Who cares?

You're so concerned about meaningless symbolic things.

I'm glad you don't support Rand. But it's still nonsensical.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you sure about that?  http://youtu.be/Yn52STCysYI?t=16m57s
> 
> There's no way in hell Rand really means that he has a problem if evidence obtained from torture can be used against that person.  But that's kinda sorta what he said.  And if that is what he meant, I couldn't support him.  I don't know how anyone else could.  But his voting record and statements he's said since then tell mean he didn't mean that.


If torture did lead to obtaining real information, I wouldn't support throwing out the information.  I'd support locking the torturers up for life, if not executing them outright, but I still wouldn't support letting a man I know is guilty go free, even if I shouldn't know.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

A *confession* obtained by torture, on the other hand, is absolutely unreliable and I see no reason to trust it at all.

----------


## July

//

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ah, but he _does_ believe in doing that....
> 
> Read More http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/0...#ixzz2TNRYkD00


I don't believe for a second that that actually happened.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If what you say is true, this stops all the talk about him being "just like his Dad".  
> 
> His Dad proudly wore that label in 1988, and it's a heckuva lot better label than "conservative" considering what the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin et al have done to (successfully, in the mind of most people) hijack *that* label.


What "talk"?  You mean when his father, Ron Paul, said that he and Rand agreed on 99% of the issues?  THAT talk?  Be sure and tell Ron all about it, cajuncocoa.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Can you find that for me in any dictionary? 
> 
> Good Lord, how would you like it if I said "one of the meanings of 'conservative' is someone who is a war-mongering misogynist"?  (after all, Rush Limbaugh calls himself a "conservative" so that _must_ be true!)


It's nice to know that you care more about some stupid ass label than turning around some of the horrid policies that our government has enacted.

It's not Rand's primary goal to promote the term "libertarian", but that will follow as he focuses on issues.  In the meantime, people may want to start delineating between anarchists and libertarians.  Because conflating the two is one of the major reasons why so many Americans think they are one in the same.

----------


## erowe1

> It's nice to know that you care more about some stupid ass label than turning around some of the horrid policies that our government has enacted.


CC is all over the map.

Earlier in the thread, she didn't care about him disavowing the label, all that mattered was the definition he was using. Now she doesn't care about the definition he's using, just the fact that he's disavowing the label.

Here's what's really going on. She just doesn't want to admit she was wrong about when he endorsed Romney.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> CC is all over the map.
> 
> Earlier in the thread, she didn't care about him disavowing the label, all that mattered was the definition he was using. Now she doesn't care about the definition he's using, just the fact that he's disavowing the label.
> 
> Here's what's really going on. *She just doesn't want to admit she was wrong about when he endorsed Romney*.


LMAO!!  No, I think Rand proves me right about that almost every week lately.

As for the first part of your post, I haven't been inconsistent about that at all.  I don't care what label he chooses to define himself, or if he doesn't want to label himself at all.  My comment about the label "libertarian" vs. "conservative" was only to counter *your* insult about the libertarian label. Rand can call himself a damned communist for all I care.

----------


## moostraks

> Can you find that for me in any dictionary? 
> 
> Good Lord, how would you like it if I said "one of the meanings of 'conservative' is someone who is a war-mongering misogynist"?  (after all, Rush Limbaugh calls himself a "conservative" so that _must_ be true!)


Lol!!! I was thinking almost this same thought when I read Rand's response. Funny to watch one of rpf's resident appearance freaks talk about how this is irrelevant only because her guy is dissing someone else.

----------


## adisongrace

> "i'm not a libertarian"
> 
> "i'm a libertarian republican"
> 
> i know.. right?  huge difference.. 300 posts, the sky must be falling
> 
> pathetic
> 
> people like kokesh are busy organizing their own to show what it means to be real libertarians in his world, while others are busy bitching about there not being good enough leaders they like lying around for them to follow


While the world debates Rand's intentions here is what the grass roots are prepared to do on July 4th, hope to see you there!:

http://www.facebook.com/events/252728144871259/

----------


## erowe1

> LMAO!!  No, I think Rand proves me right about that almost every week lately.
> 
> As for the first part of your post, I haven't been inconsistent about that at all.  I don't care what label he chooses to define himself, or if he doesn't want to label himself at all.  My comment about the label "libertarian" vs. "conservative" was only to counter *your* insult about the libertarian label. Rand can call himself a damned communist for all I care.


So you're back to not caring if he calls himself a libertarian now? So that line about he needs to call himself a libertarian so he can do the same thing his dad did is not where you are any more?

Then we're back to the problem of the definition he was using when he disavowed the label. It would be ok if he said he wasn't a libertarian in the sense of wanting more freedom and less government. What's not ok is that he claims not to be a pot smoking nudist.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So you're back to not caring if he calls himself a libertarian now? *So that line about he needs to call himself a libertarian so he can do the same thing his dad did is not where you are any more?*
> 
> Then we're back to the problem of the definition he was using when he disavowed the label. It would be ok if he said he wasn't a libertarian in the sense of wanting more freedom and less government. What's not ok is that he claims not to be a pot smoking nudist.


Could you please point out exactly where you think  I said "he needs to call himself a libertarian so he can do the same thing his dad did"?  

That's not what I said at all!

Here is the exact exchange:




> The whole point is to reject the label, not proudly accept it.





> If what you say is true, this stops all the talk about him being "just like his Dad". 
> 
> His Dad proudly wore that label in 1988, and it's a heckuva lot better label than "conservative" considering what the likes of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin et al have done to (successfully, in the mind of most people) hijack *that* label.


Not one word about what Rand "*needs* to do".

To recap:  I don't care at all what Rand calls himself.  I *do* wish Randroids would stop saying "Rand is just like his Dad" because he clearly isn't, and it doesn't appear that he really wants to be.

----------


## erowe1

> Could you please point out exactly where you think  I said "he needs to call himself a libertarian so he can do the same thing his dad did"?


I was just going to say it was in post 363, but now I see that you included the exchange in your post here.

I'm not sure what more I could say then just to read that.

At any rate, apparently now we're back to you caring what Rand calls himself, which you keep saying you don't. Otherwise, why would it matter if the thing way he differs with his dad is in the label he uses?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I was just going to say it was in post 363, but now I see that you included the exchange in your post here.
> 
> I'm not sure what more I could say then just to read that.
> 
> At any rate, apparently now we're back to you caring what Rand calls himself, which you keep saying you don't. Otherwise, why would it matter if the thing way he differs with his dad is in the label he uses?


Oh. Dear. God.  are you dense?  

I DON'T CARE!

Nothing else to be said, you don't read it anyway.

----------


## erowe1

> Oh. Dear. God.  are you dense?  
> 
> I DON'T CARE!
> 
> Nothing else to be said, you don't read it anyway.


I'll add this to the list of your all-over-the-map opinions.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'll add this to the list of your all-over-the-map opinions.


I think I'll add you to my ignore list.

----------


## adisongrace

smh. this thread is useless bickering. 

Lets look at the facts here
1)Rand used censorship MONTHS AGO to subvert truth about the election
2)He has been bought out by the same lobbyists his father boycotted
3)He supports drone warfare [in our own country I might add, which seems opposite of what freedom is about]
4) He not only supports the GOP, but supports the Israeli government.
5)Has flip flopped on the issue of drugs and the war on marijuana

6) and lastly no longer will talk about this!



In conclusion don't be a sheep QUESTION EVERYONE, EVERYTHING, AND DO NOT CREATE A NEW PARADIGM!

----------


## erowe1

> smh. this thread is useless bickering.


It's not useless.

The people complaining are very useful to Rand. We should egg them on.

----------


## TheGrinch

> In conclusion don't be a sheep QUESTION EVERYONE, EVERYTHING, AND DO NOT CREATE A NEW PARADIGM!


Must ...resist... urge.... to... create... new... paradigm....

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Here's a newsflash: Ron Paul distanced himself from the Libertarian Party in 1996, when he was challenging Laughlin (primary) and Morris (general).  Furthermore, Ron Paul switched parties because he knew full-well he couldn't get back into the U.S. House as a Libertarian.  He then, of course, ran for President two more times, in the GOP primary.
> 
> Why didn't Ron Paul stay true to his principles and remain a Libertarian?  Did Ron Paul, gasp, do something politically practical?
> 
> Trey Grayson and the national and Kentucky GOP establishment tried to paint Rand Paul as some wacky Libertarian who wanted to legalize meth and supported abortion.  He knows better than to get hung around the neck with the 1-ton anchor that is how Libertarians are perceived by Republican primary voters.  Like it or not, part of that is the Libertarian Party's own doing, by not jettisoning some of their weirdos.


I always envision Gary Johnson with his 1960s PEACE shirts and advocating pot.  Way too easy to get pigeonholed doing that.  Rand is smart to do this during the primary.  I'm willing to bet he tacks back towards libertarianism during the general election against Hillary.

----------


## fr33

Op-Ed: No, Rand Paul, libertarians are more than just naked drug users

----------


## supermario21

Gary Johnson supports blanket amnesty. Where are the libertarian haters there? I like how we hold our politicians to a high standard, but when we're going off of quotes which are often misnoted by journalists or those with an agenda rather than votes we risk fracturing our movement too much.

----------


## fr33

> Gary Johnson supports blanket amnesty. Where are the libertarian haters there? I like how we hold our politicians to a high standard, but when we're going off of quotes which are often misnoted by journalists or those with an agenda rather than votes we risk fracturing our movement too much.


Lots of people griped about Gary.

----------


## Christian Liberty

What exactly is unlibertarian about amnesty?  I have yet to figure that one out...

----------


## TheGrinch

> Op-Ed: No, Rand Paul, libertarians are more than just naked drug users


Not even worth reading what we all know to be true.

Cmon people, is this that hard to get?

He's talking to an evangelical audience, saying "I'm not (what you picture when you think of a libertarian)".  He's not stereotyping, he's pointing to the false perception about anyone who has a libertarian lean.  Some of you act like this is the first time you've heard that common stereotype, as if Rand was the first one to say what that audience already thought of people like him. 

He's trying to build bridges with these people, so don't get all butthurt taking him literally because you can't see that.

Put in context, I'll even admit that I was wrong about his intentions in thinking he wanted to disassociate himself from libertarians. It's even simpler than that once viewed in context. He's trying to move past a damaging stereotype that's been frequently used against us to marginalize our ideals.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Op-Ed: No, Rand Paul, libertarians are more than just naked drug users


Full text:



> Lexington - According to Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul, libertarians want to go outside without any clothes on and smoke pot. Although I wouldn't oppose someone doing that, I'm rather insulted that he believes that's all I aspire to do in life.
> 
> When I dive into libertarianism, I usually think and espouse the concepts of personal responsibility, economic freedom, limited government and leading a life where coercion is not acceptable. When I think about libertarians, I usually picture the likes of Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, Ron Paul, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand (though she objected to libertarianism) and perhaps to some extent Thomas Sowell.
> 
> For those who have a paucity of knowledge regarding libertarianism, they usually picture roads with no lanes, people sitting in their homes doing drugs and a residence or commercial property engulfed in flames without any firefighters putting it out. Indeed, to anyone who has studied the political ideology, this is utter nonsense.
> 
> This week, one particular politician deeply disappointed me because he certainly should know better. Tea Party favorite Rand Paul claimed that he is not a libertarian who is advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot. Instead, hes a libertarian Republican and a constitutional conservative.
> 
> Huh? This is how Rand Paul, the son of the grandfather of the Tea Party and the rejuvenator of the libertarian movement, depicts the philosophy of peace, freedom and prosperity? A bunch of stoners sauntering around the streets butt-naked? I mean if he was talking about hipsters Id understand, but a movement that quotes Thomas Jefferson, Henry Hazlitt and Frederick Bastiat? If this was anyone else, like Los Angeles mayoral candidate Eric Garcetti, Id realize the ignorance, but a guy who has been exposed to the ideas of Austrian Economics and non-intervention his whole life should certainly know a whole lot more.
> ...




Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...#ixzz2TO3VnoRl

+rep to fr33 for the find

----------


## cajuncocoa

> He's trying to build bridges with these people,


He's burning a few bridges, too.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Ron Paul screwed himself by running and talking like a Libertarian. 
> 
> Rand Paul has always been a Republican and talks Conservative.


Translation: Ron Paul screwed himself by being honest.

According to Professor Frank

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> While the world debates Rand's intentions here is what the grass roots are prepared to do on July 4th, hope to see you there!:
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/events/252728144871259/



Oh I'll be there

----------


## jmdrake

> If torture did lead to obtaining real information, I wouldn't support throwing out the information.  I'd support locking the torturers up for life, if not executing them outright, but I still wouldn't support letting a man I know is guilty go free, even if I shouldn't know.  Two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> A *confession* obtained by torture, on the other hand, is absolutely unreliable and I see no reason to trust it at all.


Well Rand specifically said "his confession is thrown out and that's a problem.."  Here's the exact quote:

_I think there is a form of due process in military trials.  Our soldiers, if the are accused of murder on the battlefield, are tried by military tribunals.  It doesn't have the same protections as our civilian courts.  But what I'm fearful of is...that Khalid Sheik Mohammed we didn't do all the right things maybe...in the way he was apprehended...or the way we do things in civilian court...I'm afraid if we take things things into civilian court...and a judge says you did these things...tortured him or whatever you did to him...and his confession is thrown out...and I think that's a problem"._

I disagree with your point on information gained from torture.  It should be treated the same as information gained from an illegal search.  Use it to stop an attack, fine.  But it should be suppressed for prosecution.  The idea that torturers would be locked up for life or executed even though they "got to goods" on some really bad guy is pure fantasy.  

Finally, the point that he was making is actually inaccurate.  Or at least it was.  Until the NDAA passed, it was against the law for someone to confess to a capital crime in a military tribunal.  So it didn't matter whether KSM's confession came from torture or not.  It couldn't come it at all.  Remember Eric Holder said he was certain he could get a conviction of KSM in civilian court?  That's because they had a confession.  It was really stupid of republicans (if they really wanted KSM tried at all) to insist on a military tribunal.

And that's another reason I think Rand was pulling people's legs.  Maybe he didn't understand how military tribunals worked.  Or maybe he *did* understand and knew that his off the cuff statement didn't really mean anything.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I think I'll add you to my ignore list.


He's been on my ignore list since September 2011.

He's a troll. Period.

----------


## jmdrake

> Translation: Ron Paul screwed himself by being honest.
> 
> According to Professor Frank


This last election Ron Paul went beyond telling the truth to being almost self destructive.  When asked about the raid that supposedly killed Osama Bin Laden he could have said "Well I'm glad he's dead.  Now are we going to bring the troops home and repeal the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland inSecurity?"  Instead he used the moment to talk about "Pakistani sovereignty" and "joint operations".  To most people who buy the official story on 9/11 that sounds nuts.  To those of use who think Tim Osman was most likely already dead?  Not a problem of course, but there aren't enough of us.  Even his answer on heroin as a "freedom issue", which earned (begrudging?) respect from Juan Williams could have been phrased better.  When asked if was a freedom issue the answer?  "Well I certainly think it's a states rights issue.  Prohibition of alcohol was done through a constitutional amendment.  If people want federal drug laws they should amend the constitution.  This idea that everything that happens anywhere in the Unites States somehow is part of interstate commerce and thus can be regulated by the federal government is insane."  But no, instead he called it a "freedom issue" to the thrill of young people and to the dismay of their parents and grandparents who are more likely than them to vote.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> This thread got WAYY Off topic.
> 
> The issue isn't about whether Rand is or is not a Libertarian or libertarian.  The issue is that he insulted everyone who does personally identify as libertarians and Libertarians by stereotyping us all as Nudist Potheads.  I think he owes us an apology.  I happen to be a big L libertarian who has donated large sums to Ron's and Rand's and Amash's and Massie's, and Kokesh's and Schiff's campaigns, as well as personally paying enough for two people to attend CPAC 2011.  Yet Rand Paul just called me, a non smoking, non drinking, drug free, clean cut, straight laced, commissioned officer of the US Army *a pot smoking nudist*.  I am not amused, and this kind of insult is neither statesmanlike, nor gentlemanly.  In the old days, I would be within the realm of honor to challenge him to a dual.  I politely ask that he not lump me in with libertine extremists lest I be tempted to lump his Baptist raised ass in with the Westboro church.


Yup, gotta get this thread back on the Hate Rand rail.  I mean, he's our only major political voice for liberty that has any hope in hell at defeating Hillary, but let's throw him under bus so she can have the full 8 year term.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> He's burning a few bridges, too.


I'm guessing the crowd he's "burning" bridges with too is more loud than numerous.

----------


## TheGrinch

> He's burning a few bridges, too.


Only if you have a knee-jerk reaction over every little out-of-context blurb that comes out of his mouth, that's the kind of crap the media has done to Ron for years to smear him. I swear some are just looking for any reason to dislike the guy, so if those are the bridges he's burning, then so be it (really I think it's those that are burning bridges). 

There was actually a perfect example in this thread of what he was trying to say. Traditional Conservative said (paraphrase) "I'm not one of those who blindly defends Rand". Does that mean that all others who support Rand are blind apologists? Of course not, but he's trying to move past the stereotype that supporting him equates with being an apologist. Why is he making it a point to say this? Because that's the perception from the other side.

Just the same, when Rand is speaking to this evangelical audience, he is seeking to move past the stereotype that they have about libertarian-minded individuals. That doesn't mean that Rand thinks all libertarians fit into that stereotype. Just the opposite, he's trying to move past that unfair stereotype to show that his views re not incompatible with Christian ones. 

So take his statements with a little bit of context before you go burning bridges yourself.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> This last election Ron Paul went beyond telling the truth to being almost self destructive.  When asked about the raid that supposedly killed Osama Bin Laden he could have said "Well I'm glad he's dead.  Now are we going to bring the troops home and repeal the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland inSecurity?"  Instead he used the moment to talk about "Pakistani sovereignty" and "joint operations".  To most people who buy the official story on 9/11 that sounds nuts.  To those of use who think Tim Osman was most likely already dead?  Not a problem of course, but there aren't enough of us.  Even his answer on heroin as a "freedom issue", which earned (begrudging?) respect from Juan Williams could have been phrased better.  When asked if was a freedom issue the answer?  "Well I certainly think it's a states rights issue.  Prohibition of alcohol was done through a constitutional amendment.  If people want federal drug laws they should amend the constitution.  This idea that everything that happens anywhere in the Unites States somehow is part of interstate commerce and thus can be regulated by the federal government is insane."  But no, instead he called it a "freedom issue" to the thrill of young people and to the dismay of their parents and grandparents who are more likely than them to vote.


This is a very astute and accurate statement.  Ron's support took a noticeable hit after he began discussing and quoting Osama Bin Laden.  It took a few months to recover from that, but had Ron been in a position to win you would've seen his Bin Laden comments made into the most damaging attack ads that would make LBJ blush.  You're correct though, to 98% of the public they sounded grossly naive at best and completely nuts at worst.

----------


## Warlord

> He's burning a few bridges, too.


LOL what did he say that was so insulting/degrading?

He said "i'm not a libertarian who smokes pot and runs around naked... " 

That's a factually TRUE statement. He's not a libertarian who does that.  He never suggested that libertarians do this just that he's not a libertarian who does that. 

I really dont understand why you can't grasp his parsing of words. What he said is a true statement and he's not insulting/degrading libertarians.  There are many libertarians who would agree with his statement as they're not "libertarian who run around naked" LOL ?

Are you one of those or are you not?

----------


## TheGrinch

> LOL what did he say that was so insulting/degrading?
> 
> He said "i'm not a libertarian who smokes pot and runs around naked... " 
> 
> That's a factually TRUE statement. He's not a libertarian who does that.  He never suggested that libertarians do this just that he's not a libertarian who does that. 
> 
> I really dont understand why you can't grasp his parsing of words. What he said is a true statement and he's not insulting/degrading libertarians.  There are many libertarians who would agree with his statement as they're not "libertarian who run around naked" LOL ?
> 
> Are you one of those or are you not?


Some refuse to grasp that he's not trying to make an unfair stereotype, he's trying to move past that unfair stereotype that already exists in that audience's minds. 

Some would do well to study methods of persuading a biased audience. They will immediately dismiss what you have to say if you fall into their stereotype that opposes their worldview. You have to emphasize common ground first, or they will never listen to the things that are harder for them to swallow.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Only if you have a knee-jerk reaction over every little out-of-context blurb that comes out of his mouth, that's the kind of crap the media has done to Ron for years to smear him. I swear some are just looking for any reason to dislike the guy, so if those are the bridges he's burning, then so be it (really I think it's those that are burning bridges). 
> 
> There was actually a perfect example in this thread of what he was trying to say. Traditional Conservative said (paraphrase) "I'm not one of those who blindly defends Rand". Does that mean that all others who support Rand are blind apologists? Of course not, but he's trying to move past the stereotype that supporting him equates with being an apologist. Why is he making it a point to say this? Because that's the perception from the other side.
> 
> Just the same, *when Rand is speaking to this evangelical audience, he is seeking to move past the stereotype that they have about libertarian-minded individuals. That doesn't mean that Rand thinks all libertarians fit into that stereotype. Just the opposite, he's trying to move past that unfair stereotype to show that his views re not incompatible with Christian ones.* 
> 
> So take his statements with a little bit of context before you go burning bridges yourself.


First, the not-so-out-of-context blurbs are getting to be all too frequent with Rand.   Being a savvy politician is to know that your every word is going to be examined.  He should expect this.  

As to the bolded part of your post, Rand could have taken the opportunity to explain to this evangelical audience that their perception of libertarianism is incorrect!  He could have said "the notion that libertarians are people who run around smoking pot while naked is ludicrous!  In fact, I consider myself a libertarian Republican...." and continue on to make  positive points about the concerns that libertarians and conservatives share.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I'm guessing the crowd he's "burning" bridges with too is more loud than numerous.


And for all the venom they spew, they sure like to hang around the Rand Paul subforum don't they?

----------


## Warlord

RAND said "i'm not advocating people run round naked and smoke pot"

Riddle me this, which libertarians are advocating this? Are you advocating this cajun? Or could you say something similar ? i.e you're not advocating this?

----------


## adisongrace

I see that no one can focus on the facts here.
Warning: Paradigm has shifted we now must bow to Rand.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> LOL what did he say that was so insulting/degrading?
> 
> *He said "i'm not a libertarian who smokes pot and runs around naked... " 
> *
> That's a factually TRUE statement. He's not a libertarian who does that.  He never suggested that libertarians do this just that he's not a libertarian who does that. 
> 
> I really dont understand why you can't grasp his parsing of words. What he said is a true statement and he's not insulting/degrading libertarians.  There are many libertarians who would agree with his statement as they're not "libertarian who run around naked" LOL ?
> 
> Are you one of those or are you not?


Oh, but it *is* insulting....and I'm not the only one who thinks so!

There have been numerous examples in this thread alone to show how generalizations can be made to sound insulting.  He could have just said "I'm not a libertarian.  I'm a libertarian Republican" and leave it at that.  He fed into their perception of what a libertarian is (naked pot-smokers), rather than take the opportunity to correct that perception. Or, just not bring it up at all. 

I don't think this is that hard for you Rand supporters to grasp.  Obviously he *did* mean to take a swipe at libertarians in an attempt to further distance himself from the label, at least in front of this evangelical audience (he needs to remember that what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas anymore).   If he doesn't want that label, fine....but it's not politically smart to smear a group of people (libertarians) whose vote he may find he needs and wants if he gets past the primaries.

----------


## TheGrinch

> First, the not-so-out-of-context blurbs are getting to be all too frequent with Rand.   Being a savvy politician is to know that your every word is going to be examined.  He should expect this.  
> 
> As to the bolded part of your post, Rand could have taken the opportunity to explain to this evangelical audience that their perception of libertarianism is incorrect!  He could have said "the notion that libertarians are people who run around smoking pot while naked is ludicrous!  In fact, I consider myself a libertarian Republican...." and continue on to make  positive points about the concerns that libertarians and conservatives share.


I can agree with that, that he needs to choose his words more carefully, these gaffes are way too frequent. I can pretty much predict the reaction when he says stuff like this, but on the same token, we need to get better about trying to figure out what he means rather than knee-jerk about what you want to think he means.

But he's not trying to change their perceptions about libertarians, because frankly it's a futile effort when I've seen Ron Paul rallies turned into a pot legalization platform.  I'm pro-legalization too, but it is what it is,  a source of divisivenness... He's much better off to emphasize common ideals, rather than try to convince them that their long-standing perceptions are false (though him showing that he shares many of these ideals but doesn't fit that stereotype is certainly a start).  He's just not going to change their perceptions beyond that, but he can build bridges and change the way they view our shared ideals.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> RAND said "i'm not advocating people run round naked and smoke pot"
> 
> Riddle me this, which libertarians are advocating this? Are you advocating this cajun? Or could you say something similar ? i.e you're not advocating this?


Nice straw man argument.  Not worthy of a response.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Oh, but it *is* insulting....and I'm not the only one who thinks so!


Really?  How many people do you think care?  I bet 5% of the U.S. population doesn't even know he made these comments.  The drama only exists here, Daily Paul and some other more obscure places (like the blog linked to in the OP.)

Sorry that Rand Paul offended your delicate sensibilities.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Really?  How many people do you think care?  I bet 5% of the U.S. population doesn't even know he made these comments.  The drama only exists here, Daily Paul and some other more obscure places (like the blog linked to in the OP.)


OK, if he can live without those votes (those who do care) in the primaries, more power to him!

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> OK, if he can live without those votes (those who do care) in the primaries, more power to him!


Mitt Romney and John McCain seemed to...

Regardless of that point, I'll say it again: the crowd here raising a ruckus over this doesn't represent any substantial number of votes.  You want to believe the Rand haters here and on Daily Paul hold some big sway, but their belief they do is simply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I'm guessing the crowd he's "burning" bridges with too is more loud than numerous.


Lol look at the Rand Slurpers downplaying the damage again. 

Keep living your fantasy...

----------


## Warlord

> Oh, but it *is* insulting....and I'm not the only one who thinks so!
> 
> There have been numerous examples in this thread alone to show how generalizations can be made to sound insulting.  He could have just said "I'm not a libertarian.  I'm a libertarian Republican" and leave it at that.  He fed into their perception of what a libertarian is (naked pot-smokers), rather than take the opportunity to correct that perception. Or, just not bring it up at all. 
> 
> I don't think this is that hard for you Rand supporters to grasp.  Obviously he *did* mean to take a swipe at libertarians in an attempt to further distance himself from the label, at least in front of this evangelical audience (he needs to remember that what happens in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas anymore).   If he doesn't want that label, fine....but it's not politically smart to smear a group of people (libertarians) whose vote he may find he needs and wants if he gets past the primaries.



He made a statement which was quite definitive cajun : "i'm not advocating... "

Are you advocating this?  I'm not either and I consider myself a libertarian! I could quite conceivably say exactly the same. It was a factual point. 

Only you see it as a swipe/insult. It was not meant to be. It was an observational fact he was relaying to those pastors. I could have told them the same thing

----------


## EBounding

So which _real_ liberty candidate should we get behind to take on Rand and make sure he doesn't become president?  Gary Johnson?  Maybe we can primary Rand's Senate seat too and throw him out of office forever.

----------


## TheGrinch

> So which _real_ liberty candidate should we get behind to take on Rand and make sure he doesn't become president?  Gary Johnson?  Maybe we can primary Rand's Senate seat too and throw him out of office forever.


Now this is just insane... Yes, let's take out by far the best senator we have who'd be far better than any presidential candidate.

Fine if this a deal-breaker for you supporting Rand, so be it, but if you're tearing off your nose to spit on your face to actively try to remove the only guy in Washington accomplishing changes in our favor.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> So which _real_ liberty candidate should we get behind to take on Rand and make sure he doesn't become president?  Gary Johnson?  Maybe we can primary Rand's Senate seat too and throw him out of office forever.


Throw Rand out of office forever? Sounds perfect to me.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Throw Rand out of office forever? Sounds perfect to me.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> "The damage", lol.  I'm sure it's just massive.  The half-dozen people here whining about it represent 5,000,000 GOP primary voters, don't you know?  You just keep living that fantasy.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect


You make 7 members in this thread who've been put on ignore because you can't get Rand's cock out of your mouth long enough to let your brain function.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Now this is just insane... Yes, let's take out by far the best senator we have who'd be far better than any presidential candidate.
> 
> Fine if this a deal-breaker for you supporting Rand, so be it, but if you're tearing off your nose to spit on your face to actively try to remove the only guy in Washington accomplishing changes in our favor.


I'll add to this by saying that we need more people who who agree with even 80-90% of the important issues to enact change, we've seen that 1 person who is with us 100% (Ron) is not nearly enough.

That's not a knock on Ron, but the simple truth that he's only 1 man. We need a coalition around ideals, we need not pretend we all agree or even like eachother.

----------


## AgentforPathfinder

I'm not a libertarian I'm a paleo-conservative.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Randroids will be Randroids. Go figure.


Sad but true bro. Rand is Jesus Christ come again. It is a mortal sin to question His Holiness!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Let me ask. Would you prefer that he spend his time trying to change evangelical's perceptions of libertarians, or would you prefer that he changes their perception of our shared ideals?
> 
> You can think of me whatever you want, all that matters to me is that we agree on the important issues to enact change. Ideals over ego.


Let's add a third choice: I would prefer that he would not do damage to the label "libertarian".

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Sad but true bro. Rand is Jesus Christ come again. It is a mortal sin to question His Holiness!


Reminds me a lot of Obamabots in '08. Seriously.

----------


## adisongrace

> Reminds me a lot of Obamabots in '08. Seriously.


I agree! Obama and Rand actually have alot of the same rhetoric as of late.

----------


## adisongrace

> 


obvious zombie is obvious.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Reminds me a lot of Obamabots in '08. Seriously.


This coming from a _Ron Paul_ supporter website.  Yeah, he didn't have any fanatical supporters in 2007-2008 or 2011-2012...

Oh wait, I remember this site all falling over themselves to defend him no matter what.  Be it earmarks, newsletters, donations from Don Black, Alex Jones appearances, blanket endorsement of Nader and McKinney, comments about Osama and Chris Kyle, debate performances, campaign hires, support for Lamar Smith, support of Don Young, Paul's refusal to debate after all the complaining about the media and the debates, 'Terrorist Nations' campaign commercial, etc. ,etc. ,etc.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Reminds me a lot of Obamabots in '08. Seriously.


Oh 100% now that I think about it.

HOPE! CHANGE!

Why?

Cuz HOPE! CHANGE!

But...why?

*HOPE! CHANGE!*

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> obvious zombie is obvious.


Ouch! BURN!

Edit: But oh so true.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Now this is just insane... Yes, let's take out by far the best senator we have who'd be far better than any presidential candidate.
> 
> Fine if this a deal-breaker for you supporting Rand, so be it, but if you're tearing off your nose to spit on your face to actively try to remove the only guy in Washington accomplishing changes in our favor.


I don't get this.

Even if he is the best....even if I don't want to "take him out".....does that mean he's above criticism when he makes statements such as the one that is the subject of this thread?  Even if he earns my vote, even after he's elected, I will continue to call him out.  Someone has to; his little army here isn't going to hold his feet to the fire.

----------


## EBounding

> Oh, but it *is* insulting....and I'm not the only one who thinks so!
> 
> There have been numerous examples in this thread alone to show how generalizations can be made to sound insulting.  He could have just said "I'm not a libertarian.  I'm a libertarian Republican" and leave it at that.  He fed into their perception of what a libertarian is (naked pot-smokers), rather than take the opportunity to correct that perception. Or, just not bring it up at all.


I do have to agree with that.  It doesn't make sense to insult voters, especially those you need as your activist base.

----------


## libertyplz

> No he didn't vote against it at first. Look at the govtrack. 
> He voted against the edited bill. BOTH VERSIONS still 
> contained indefinite  detention. 
> 
> Research, it does a body good 
> 
> edit:
> http://www.examiner.com/article/sen-...lion-2013-ndaa



From Rand's facebook page regarding that vote:

"I have noticed that many are confused by my vote for NDAA. Please allow me to explain. 

First, we should be clear about what the bill is. NDAA is the yearly defense authorization bill. Its primary function is to specify which programs can and can't be funded within the Pentagon and throughout the military. It is not the bill that spends the moneythat comes later in an appropriations bill. 

Because I think we should spend less, I will offer amendments to cut spending. I will likely vote against the final spending bill. This wasn't it.

*This bill also isnt about indefinite detention. This year's bill did not contain the authorization for indefinite detention.   

That provision was in last year's NDAA bill.* 

The bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US. While it is only a partial victory, it was a big victory. Particularly compared to what passed last year. Even so, I will continue to fight to protect anyone who could possibly be indefinitely detained.

I would never vote for any bill, anywhere, that I believed enhanced the government's power to abridge your rights and detain people. This goes against every principle I hold dear and the Constitution I took an oath to uphold and protect.

Government power and the many associated abuses have been piling up for years. We will not win all our liberties back at once. But we did win one battle this year, and we should be pleased that we did while also realizing the fight is really just getting started. 

I hope you will keep fighting alongside me."

source: https://www.facebook.com/notes/rand-...51450781088054

----------


## adisongrace

> "I have noticed that many are confused by my vote for NDAA. Please allow me to explain. 
> 
> First, we should be clear about what the bill is. NDAA is the yearly defense authorization bill. It’s primary function is to specify which programs can and can't be funded within the Pentagon and throughout the military. It is not the bill that spends the money—that comes later in an appropriations bill. 
> 
> Because I think we should spend less, I will offer amendments to cut spending. I will likely vote against the final spending bill. This wasn't it.
> 
> *This bill also isn’t about indefinite detention. This year's bill did not contain the authorization for indefinite detention.   
> 
> That provision was in last year's NDAA bill.* 
> ...


Like I stated before he flip-flopped after a PR nightmare.

----------


## Warlord

> No he didn't vote against it at first. Look at the govtrack. 
> He voted against the edited bill. BOTH VERSIONS still 
> contained indefinite  detention. 
> 
> Research, it does a body good 
> 
> edit:
> http://www.examiner.com/article/sen-...lion-2013-ndaa


And they got this wrong.  He voted for the funding but against the final bill itself.  He has voted against the final NDAA bill every year since he's been there and regularly denounces it in interviews and on the senate floor. He tried to get an amendment in there last year but it got stripped out in conference.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> I see you still are ignoring the facts.


What "facts"?  That Rand Paul said he's not a Libertarian (which is what this whole thread was started over), and for whatever reason members such as cajuncocoa need a fainting couch over it?

----------


## Warlord

He did not flip flop. His voted is to authorize 650bn of appropriations not for the bill containing the indefinite detention language.

But you'll never understand it.

----------


## adisongrace

> And they got this wrong.  He voted for the funding but against the final bill itself.  He has voted against the final NDAA bill every year since he's been there and regularly denounces it in interviews and on the senate floor. He tried to get an amendment in there last year but it got stripped out in conference.


You can't just pick and choose WHAT you vote for in the bill. 
He voted for tyranny and expanding the military industrial 
complex. Two things I stand against. 

I do not support Rand because he continues to spit in the faces 
of those that are fighting for liberty. 

that is my view. now if you do not agree, support him. by all
means. but don't pretend like these facts do not exist.

----------


## adisongrace

> What "facts"?  That Rand Paul said he's not a Libertarian (which is what this whole thread was started over), and for whatever reason members such as cajuncocoa need a fainting couch over it?


I stated them earlier in this thread...
But hey $#@! liberty right?

----------


## radiofriendly

Just because #Merica

----------


## Warlord

> You can't just pick and choose WHAT you vote for in the bill. 
> He voted for tyranny and expanding the military industrial 
> complex. Two things I stand against. 
> 
> I do not support Rand because he continues to spit in the faces 
> of those that are fighting for liberty. 
> 
> that is my view. now if you do not agree, support him. by all
> means. but don't pretend like these facts do not exist.


Oh my god.  

You're such an idiot i'm not even going to respond to this.

----------


## adisongrace

> Oh my god.  
> 
> You're such an idiot i'm not even going to respond to this.


I'm an idiot? Really? I'm glad you know the intellect levels 
I harbor when in reality you know nothing about me. 

You can have your views, but do not deny the truth. 

Zombies taste yummy.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Oh my god.  
> 
> You're such an idiot i'm not even going to respond to this.


Lol you can't get Rand's cock out of your mouth long enough to speak.

When Rand cums you all fight over it to let us know how great it tastes.

----------


## compromise

> Ron Paul however didn't spit on liberty incrementally every chance he got.


Calling yourself a Libertarian (like those hookers in the LP who probably don't know anything about libertarianism) makes you a hero of liberty...yet calling yourself a "libertarian Republican" somehow is "spitting on liberty incrementally at every chance you get".

Seriously, some people on this site go crazy over such minor things.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I'm an idiot? Really? I'm glad you know the intellect levels 
> I harbor when in reality you know nothing about me. 
> 
> You can have your views, but do not deny the truth. 
> 
> Zombies taste yummy.


I agree. I love the taste of lamb.

----------


## adisongrace

> Calling yourself a Libertarian (like those hookers in the LP who probably don't know anything about libertarianism) makes you a hero of liberty...yet calling yourself a "libertarian Republican" somehow is "spitting on liberty incrementally at every chance you get".
> 
> Seriously, some people on this site go crazy over such minor things.


One I never called myself a libertarian. I am not a member of any party.
 I stand with the people.

----------


## Warlord

> Lol you can't get Rand's cock out of your mouth long enough to speak.
> 
> When Rand cums you all fight over it to let us know how great it tastes.


Why are you even in this forum?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

GODDAMN this forum has taken a HARD RIGHT TURN (and traveling at about 120MPH) since the election.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Why are you even in this forum?


What forum?

----------


## adisongrace

> Why are you even in this forum?


because he believes in what Ron Paul stands for.
Not what Rand has _become_

----------


## compromise

> One I never called myself a libertarian. I am apart of no party. I stand with the people.


I'm referring to the article in the OP, which clearly very few of the people here have read. Yes, Rand says he's not a Libertarian. Then he says immediately afterwards that he's a libertarian Republican. Unfortunately, the member who made this thread has a vendetta against Rand, and so seeks to portray Rand in the worst way possible by cutting out the part where Rand does declare himself a libertarian in the topic title. This is like the sort of $#@! the MSM used to pull on Ron, cutting stuff out and misrepresenting everything he said, except this time it's self-described libertarians doing it to Rand Paul, arguably the tied most libertarian figure active in US politics.

----------


## compromise

> because he believes in what Ron Paul stands for.
> Not what Rand has _become_


In Ron's own words, they stand for the same thing 99% of the time.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> because he believes in what Ron Paul stands for.
> Not what Rand has _become_


That's why I'm here, too.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> In Ron's own words, they stand for the same thing 99% of the time.


Rand has a poor way of articulating that. And I wonder if Rand wishes Dad hadn't said that; Rand's new friends might find out he did.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> because he believes in what Ron Paul stands for.
> Not what Rand has _become_


This ^

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> In Ron's own words, they stand for the same thing 99% of the time.


That's an awful big 1%...Rand is anti libertarian and pro Israel.

----------


## FrankRep

> because he believes in what Ron Paul stands for.
> Not what Rand has _become_


What has Rand Paul become? Rand Paul is doing pretty good in Senate.

----------


## compromise

> Rand has a poor way of articulating that. And I wonder if Rand wishes Dad hadn't said that; Rand's new friends might find out he did.


Rand's new friends? You mean McConnell and Priebus? They knew that since the beginning. Rand's not sucking up to them, they're coming to him because he's the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. McConnell's signing up to Rand's bills, not the other way round.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> That's why I'm here, too.


Thank you!

----------


## FrankRep

> That's an awful big 1%...Rand is anti libertarian and pro Israel.


Rand Paul is a Conservative Constitutionalist and plans to cut aid to Israel. What's the issue?

----------


## compromise

> That's an awful big 1%...Rand is anti libertarian and pro Israel.


Anti libertarian, even though he just called himself a "libertarian Republican"?

Rand's pro Israel...so what? So is Amash, and likely Massie too.

Heck, even Ron claimed to be pro-Israel when he ran for president.

Good luck getting a right wing "anti-Israel" candidate elected, either Republican or third party.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Anti libertarian, even though he just called himself a "libertarian Republican"?
> 
> Rand's pro Israel...so what? So is Amash, and likely Massie too.
> 
> Heck, even Ron claimed to be pro-Israel when he ran for president.
> 
> Good luck getting a right wing "anti-Israel" candidate elected, either Republican or third party.


Ron was never fine with the Palestinian Holocaust.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> What forum?


www.randpaulforums.com

----------


## adisongrace

Politics is bought and owned by lobbyist corps., the fed, and the world bank. I have no faith in 
our system. The constitution, the very thing that safeguards our rights are being used against us
through social media networking.

----------


## CCTelander

> In Ron's own words, they stand for the same thing 99% of the time.



As a father, I've been known on occasion to say nice things about my sons which, if strictly analyzed, were not really 100% accurate or true. Just a thought.

----------


## FrankRep

> Ron was never fine with the Palestinian Holocaust.


There's no Holocaust happening in Israel. Silly propaganda.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> As a father, I've been known on occasion to say nice things about my sons which. If strictly snalyzed, were not really 100% accurate or true. Just a thought.


So now Ron Paul is a liar? 

Maybe Ron Paul doesn't freak out of non-issues like this?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> www.randpaulforums.com


That's just a redirected url. The banner and url at top of my page both say "RON Paul forums"

----------


## cajuncocoa

> As a father, I've been known on occasion to say nice things about my sons which, if strictly analyzed, were not really 100% accurate or true. Just a thought.


As a parent, that occurred to me too.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> There's no Holocaust happening in Israel. Silly propaganda.


LOL

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> That's just a redirected url. The banner and url at top of my page both say "RON Paul forums"


It also says, just below it: "Liberty Forums: Rand Paul Forum"

It's a redirected link, made by this site's owner.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So now Ron Paul is a liar?


It's not lying; it's being a parent. Heck, maybe it's true, but if it is

1. Rand may be screwed in the GOP
2. Rand should find a better way to communicate this.

----------


## FrankRep

Rand Paul has an excellent voting record, yet libertarians still attack him.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It also says, just below it: "Liberty Forums: Rand Paul Forum"
> 
> It's a redirected link, made by this site's owner.


Still primarily RON Paul Forums, no matter how you spin it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand Paul has an excellent voting record, yet libertarians still attack him.


And they say we're sensitive 

This isn't "attacking"; this is criticism of Rand's approach. If anyone was "attacked", it was libertarians by Rand.

----------


## adisongrace

> And they say we're sensitive 
> 
> This isn't "attacking"; this is criticism of Rand's approach. If anyone was "attacked", it was libertarians by Rand.


Exactly. 

Oh I don't agree with drones, now I'm attacking Obama. Poor elite.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Rand has a poor way of articulating that. And I wonder if Rand wishes Dad hadn't said that; Rand's new friends might find out he did.


Actually, Rand is articulating it fabulously for his intended audience.  These are the people who could not hear Ron because of some of the way he introduced the issues.  This is why I have always said we need both of them.  Ron's words worked for you and others, but didn't for others.  That is who Rand is going after.  I am thankful that both of them care so much about liberty that they are both in there trying as hard as they can.  Now, if a lot of others would do likewise, we might just stand a chance.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Adison, with all due respect, you have your facts wrong.  But, you don't seem to be willing to listen or even investigate what others have already told you, so just yammer on.

----------


## adisongrace

There shouldn't be an intended audience. Freedom knows no bounds or 
audience. Freedom is freedom no matter how you spin it.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Still primarily RON Paul Forums, no matter how you spin it.


And I'm sure what Ron Paul himself wants is people trashing his son.  With "supporters" like that...

----------


## adisongrace

> Adison, with all due respect, you have your facts wrong.  But, you don't seem to be willing to listen or even investigate what others have already told you, so just yammer on.


I'm willing to listen. I provided facts and I get ignored. Thats how it always goes on this forum when it
doesnt suit the narrative.

----------


## adisongrace

> And I'm sure what Ron Paul himself wants is people trashing his son.  With "supporters" like that...


Just as Rand disapproved of Ron's run hmmm....

----------


## cajuncocoa

Let me try this another way:  if, after courting evangelicals, Rand meets with a pro-business group of Republicans, and during his speech to them makes the comment, "I'm a Christian, but I'm not like those intolerant Bible-thumpers running around trying to _SAVE_ everybody!" you guys would be having a fit worried that he shot himself with the very group he just tried to win over (and rightly so!!)


If liberty is catching on the way some here believe it is, shouldn't you worry that Rand shot himself in the foot with those who consider themselves (small-l, not LP) libertarians??

----------


## cajuncocoa

> And I'm sure what Ron Paul himself wants is people trashing his son.  With "supporters" like that...


I'm not obligated to support his son just because I support RON. I'm sure he understands that even if some here don't.  (Not saying I will or won't vote for him, but I don't owe him anything because of RON).

----------


## cajuncocoa

> There shouldn't be an intended audience. Freedom knows no bounds or 
> audience. Freedom is freedom no matter how you spin it.


*EXACTLY!!*

----------


## Brett85

> I've seen you repeat this many times now after I've shown you clips of his exact words saying drug policy should be a state issue.  Why do you keep repeating this?
> 
> Just because he doesn't make this argument every time he talks about drugs doesn't mean it's not his belief.


He's only said that marijuana should be a state issue, not other drugs.  And he's only made that argument once or twice, when most of the time he never makes any kind of states' rights argument.

----------


## jmdrake

> Just as Rand disapproved of Ron's run hmmm....


  Rand campaigned for Ron and only endorsed Romney after Ron had dropped out.  And Ron had indeed dropped out.  There were people living in la-la fantasy land because Ron told people to continue to become delegates, but that's because that's helpful for setting the groundwork for 2014 and 2016.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> There shouldn't be an intended audience.


People have different preconceptions and successful speakers understand that if they want to reach the people to whom they are speaking.  




> Freedom knows no bounds or 
> audience. Freedom is freedom no matter how you spin it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Look guys, those of you who want to just chew on Rand for chewing's sake, how about you get the hell out of Rand's subforum and go elsewhere.  There are plenty of places you can go to crow.

----------


## Brett85

> smh. this thread is useless bickering. 
> 
> Lets look at the facts here
> 1)Rand used censorship MONTHS AGO to subvert truth about the election
> 2)He has been bought out by the same lobbyists his father boycotted
> 3)He supports drone warfare [in our own country I might add, which seems opposite of what freedom is about]
> 4) He not only supports the GOP, but supports the Israeli government.
> 5)*Has flip flopped on the issue of drugs and the war on marijuana.*


Well, to be fair to Rand, he's never advocated marijuana legalization.  I've been critical of his position on that since he ran for the Senate in 2010.

----------


## Brett85

> Look guys, those of you who want to just chew on Rand for chewing's sake, how about you get the hell out of Rand's subforum and go elsewhere.  There are plenty of places you can go to crow.


It's mostly a polite and civil discussion about what Rand should do to improve his message.  The exception to that seems to be you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm willing to listen. I provided facts and I get ignored. Thats how it always goes on this forum when it
> doesnt suit the narrative.


All I have seen you do thus far is make accusations and when people corrected you, you didn't seem too interested.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Just as Rand disapproved of Ron's run hmmm....


Oh my God, I can't deal with this.  From 01-02-2012, the day before the 2012 Iowa Caucus:




Also, Rand Paul voted for Ron Paul in 2008, despite Ron Paul not being on the ballot: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ing-for-McCain

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's mostly a polite and civil discussion about what Rand should do to improve his message.  The exception to that seems to be you.


I don't see suggestions from Adison and chocolate milk for how Rand should improve his message.  All I have seen are a lot of accusations.  Perhaps you could point out their suggestions.

----------


## Brett85

> The bottom-line, to me is, the Rand-haters crowd here is so desperate, so hungry for anything in which to beat Rand Paul over the head with, that they're forced to take issue with stupid crap like this or Rand Paul saying Obama's views could not be any 'gayer'.
> 
> You guys have some points on things such as Iran sanctions, but then you turn around and look foolish by hypersensitively hyperventilating on yawn-inducing "issues" like this.  I know Rand Paul is not giving you as much real ammo as you'd like, but find better things to cling to.


Why is the federal war on drugs a "yawn inducing issue?"  Do you not understand how the federal war on drugs creates a police state and takes away our liberties?  And those of us who are critical of Rand on this issue aren't "Rand haters."  But those who think that it's wrong to ever criticize Rand on anything are basically Rand cultists.

----------


## tsai3904

> He's only said that marijuana should be a state issue, not other drugs.  And he's only made that argument once or twice, when most of the time he never makes any kind of states' rights argument.


So you agree that Rand believes marijuana is a state issue?

As far as other drugs, the fact is Rand hasn't opined on it.  How can you then make the claim that Rand doesn't believe other drugs are also state issues?  What information do you have that I haven't seen or heard?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He's only said that marijuana should be a state issue, not other drugs.  And he's only made that argument once or twice, when most of the time he never makes any kind of states' rights argument.


Rand makes states' rights arguments all the damn time.  He's been talking about that since before he campaigned for Senator.  Where ya been?

----------


## Brett85

> I don't see suggestions from Adison and chocolate milk for how Rand should improve his message.  All I have seen are a lot of accusations.  Perhaps you could point out their suggestions.


Well, I guess I wasn't sure who you were referring to.  I thought you may have been referring to me as well.  I personally just don't think that there's anything wrong with being critical of certain statements that Rand makes.  That doesn't mean that I'm not going to support him in 2016 and allow Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush to win the nomination.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand makes states' rights arguments all the damn time.  He's been talking about that since before he campaigned for Senator.  Where ya been?


He rarely makes a states' rights argument on the drug issue.  The one and only time I recall him saying that was in a November interview with ABC.  But yet he simply tells social conservatives in Iowa that he "opposes marijuana legalization," without being clear whether he's talking about federal laws or state laws.

----------


## erowe1

> Just as Rand disapproved of Ron's run hmmm....


This is the alternate universe some people here are still in.

----------


## Brett85

> So you agree that Rand believes marijuana is a state issue?
> 
> As far as other drugs, the fact is Rand hasn't opined on it.  How can you then make the claim that Rand doesn't believe other drugs are also state issues?  What information do you have that I haven't seen or heard?


I hope so, but I've only heard him say that once.  Most of the time he just talks about how he's "opposed to drug legalization" without being specific as to whether he's talking about state laws or federal laws.

----------


## erowe1

> Let me try this another way:  if, after courting evangelicals, Rand meets with a pro-business group of Republicans, and during his speech to them makes the comment, "I'm a Christian, but I'm not like those intolerant Bible-thumpers running around trying to _SAVE_ everybody!" you guys would be having a fit worried that he shot himself with the very group he just tried to win over (and rightly so!!)


The term "Christian" isn't like "libertarian," where it could mean whatever anybody wants.

At any rate, I guess you're back to caring about labels? Or is the point now that Rand shouldn't distance himself from nudist potheads? I lost track.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> There's no Holocaust happening in Israel. Silly propaganda.



You or anyone else who replies, do so with a point by point analysis of each video. That should take several hours. See you then.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> There's no Holocaust happening in Israel. Silly propaganda.



You or anyone else who replies, do so with a point by point analysis of each video. That should take several hours. See you then.

----------


## tsai3904

> He rarely makes a states' rights argument on the drug issue.  The one and only time I recall him saying that was in a November interview with ABC.  But yet he simply tells social conservatives in Iowa that he "opposes marijuana legalization," without being clear whether he's talking about federal laws or state laws.


I remember specifically showing you two clips but when I was doing research, I found many other instances where he thinks many aspects of drug policy should be handled at the local level.

As far as the Iowa thing, there's no transcript or video of what Rand said or even what questions were asked.  How do you know for a fact he didn't make a states right argument?

----------


## tsai3904

> I hope so, but I've only heard him say that once.  Most of the time he just talks about how he's "opposed to drug legalization" without being specific as to whether he's talking about state laws or federal laws.


He said he's not for legalization.  I would assume that's at the state and/or federal level, but what difference does that make?

How does being against legalization conflict with his stance that each state should be able to decide?

----------


## Brett85

> I remember specifically showing you two clips but when I was doing research, I found many other instances where he thinks many aspects of drug policy should be handled at the local level.
> 
> As far as the Iowa thing, there's no transcript or video of what Rand said or even what questions were asked.  How do you know for a fact he didn't make a states right argument?


I'm going by the article I read, but he also never made any kind of states' rights argument on Hannity's radio show.  He made it sound like he doesn't even want to change the federal laws, because he said, "I'm not advocating changing any of the laws regarding legalization, I just want to reduce penalties."  When he says something like that, it sounds to me like he supports federal drug laws.

----------


## Brett85

> He said he's not for legalization.  I would assume that's at the state and/or federal level, but what difference does that make?
> 
> How does being against legalization conflict with his stance that each state should be able to decide?


It's a huge deal.  Having a federal ban on marijuana makes it hard if not impossible for the states to legalize it.  The Justice department will most likely sue Colorado and Washington over their marijuana legalization law and will win that lawsuit.

----------


## tsai3904

> It's a huge deal.  Having a federal ban on marijuana makes it hard if not impossible for the states to legalize it.  The Justice department will most likely sue Colorado and Washington over their marijuana legalization law and will win that lawsuit.


We already debated this in the other thread.  WA and CO have already legalized it.  It may go to the Supreme Court to have the issue resolved.  If not, then I think Rand needs to change his view on changing federal law.

However, that doesn't change the fact that Rand believes states should decide this issue.  He's said it on the record and you've heard him say it.  I'm not sure what the problem is.

----------


## supermario21

Let's see where Rand stands on the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, my bet is he'd support it.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> There shouldn't be an intended audience. Freedom knows no bounds or 
> audience. Freedom is freedom no matter how you spin it.


Amen sis.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> People have different preconceptions and successful speakers understand that if they want to reach the people to whom they are speaking.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I lost track.


On this, we agree. You lost track long ago.

----------


## erowe1

> On this, we agree. You lost track long ago.


Hey! Looks like I'm off your ignore list!

And you're right. Keeping track of your opinion is like trying to catch a chicken.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Hey! Looks like I'm off your ignore list!


I was going to give you another chance.  Looks like that was a mistake.



> And you're right. Keeping track of your opinion is like trying to catch a chicken.


Not sure why that's so hard for you alone....no one else is having a problem understanding my opinion.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

You guys are aware that you can access this thread without ever going to the Rand subforum right? I've seen 3-4 of you so far that don't seem to understand that...

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You guys are aware that you can access this thread without ever going to the Rand subforum right? I've seen 3-4 of you so far that don't seem to understand that...


That's not all they don't understand! LOL

I always access threads by clicking "new posts"

----------


## erowe1

> no one else is having a problem understanding my opinion.


Understanding it isn't the hard part. All of the opinions you've expressed are pretty...let's say... simple. The difficulty is knowing which one you have at any given moment.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> You guys are aware that you can access this thread without ever going to the Rand subforum right?


You're in the thread, which is located...where?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> That's not all they don't understand! LOL
> 
> I always access threads by clicking "new posts"


LOL that's for sure. Yes that, the front page that this thread hasn't left since it started or your own post history.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> You're in the thread, which is located...where?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't see suggestions from Adison and* chocolate milk* for how Rand should improve his message. All I have seen are a lot of accusations. Perhaps you could point out their suggestions.





> Well, I guess I wasn't sure who you were referring to.  I thought you may have been referring to me as well.  I personally just don't think that there's anything wrong with being critical of certain statements that Rand makes.  That doesn't mean that I'm not going to support him in 2016 and allow Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush to win the nomination.


I missed the first quote above TC's because I have that person on ignore but was able to see the post through TC's quote.



chocolate milk?!? That's priceless!!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Understanding it isn't the hard part. All of the opinions you've expressed are pretty...let's say... simple. The difficulty is knowing which one you have at any given moment.


It's pretty easy for almost everyone else. I can't help it if you're dense.

----------


## erowe1

> You guys are aware that you can access this thread without ever going to the Rand subforum right? I've seen 3-4 of you so far that don't seem to understand that...


I'll bite.

What is it you're seeing that tells you that some people don't understand how to get here without going to the Rand subforum?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why is the federal war on drugs a "yawn inducing issue?"  Do you not understand how the federal war on drugs creates a police state and takes away our liberties?  And those of us who are critical of Rand on this issue aren't "Rand haters."  But those who think that it's wrong to ever criticize Rand on anything are basically Rand cultists.





> Well, I guess I wasn't sure who you were referring to.  I thought you may have been referring to me as well.  I personally just don't think that there's anything wrong with being critical of certain statements that Rand makes.  That doesn't mean that I'm not going to support him in 2016 and allow Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush to win the nomination.


But... you're either with us or against us!

Seriously, I don't think Rand Paul himself would be as upset regarding our criticisms of him.  I don't think Rand Paul thinks he is God...

----------


## CCTelander

> But... you're either with us or against us!
> 
> Seriously, I don't think Rand Paul himself would be as upset regarding our criticisms of him.  I don't think Rand Paul thinks he is God...



But clearly there are those here who do.

----------


## erowe1

> Seriously, I don't think Rand Paul himself would be as upset regarding our criticisms of him.


He's definitely not. That's part of what he wants.

The most important people aren't the ones like you with reasonable criticisms though. It's the hysterical ones. Rand needs to make sure all the most embarrassing elements from his dad's coalition are visibly and vocally against him. He's doing a good job so far.

----------


## Spikender

> He's definitely not. That's part of what he wants.
> 
> The most important people aren't the ones like you with reasonable criticisms though. It's the hysterical ones. Rand needs to make sure all the most embarrassing elements from his dad's coalition are visibly and vocally against him. He's doing a good job so far.


So we're separating the wheat from the chaff, are we?

Problem is, everyone here might have different ideas of which way the wheat is going...

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> That's not all they don't understand! LOL

----------


## erowe1

> So we're separating the wheat from the chaff, are we?
> 
> Problem is, everyone here might have different ideas of which way the wheat is going...


That's all part of the process. Hopefully we can even get Justin Raimondo or someone like that to run in the Republican primaries with the backing of some of Ron's supporters and attack Rand from the libertarian side. Those folks have a very important role to play for us, and we shouldn't begrudge it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 


Does this mean I'm getting my own subforum?

----------


## supermario21

LOL Raimondo in a primary that would be so funny. Why not shoot for Lew Rockwell or Tom DiLorenzo hahahaha? I'd pay to see that.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> LOL Raimondo in a primary that would be so funny. Why not shoot for Lew Rockwell or Tom DiLorenzo hahahaha? I'd pay to see that.


Be careful what you wish for. They wouldn't win, but they could influence the outcome.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why is the federal war on drugs a "yawn inducing issue?"  Do you not understand how the federal war on drugs creates a police state and takes away our liberties?  And those of us who are critical of Rand on this issue aren't "Rand haters."  But those who think that it's wrong to ever criticize Rand on anything are basically Rand cultists.


Yeah, I guess the highest prison population in the world is a "Yawn inducing issue", LOL!!

At the same point, Rand HAS made clear that he doesn't want anyone to go to jail for using drugs, and based on the way he worded his point, that does seem to go beyond marijuana.  Its definitely a start.




> Let me try this another way:  if, after courting evangelicals, Rand meets with a pro-business group of Republicans, and during his speech to them makes the comment, "I'm a Christian, but I'm not like those intolerant Bible-thumpers running around trying to _SAVE_ everybody!" you guys would be having a fit worried that he shot himself with the very group he just tried to win over (and rightly so!!)
> 
> 
> If liberty is catching on the way some here believe it is, shouldn't you worry that Rand shot himself in the foot with those who consider themselves (small-l, not LP) libertarians??


I would have been annoyed with that statement, and as a libertarian evangelical, that statement would annoy me just as much as the original statement...




> He's only said that marijuana should be a state issue, not other drugs.  And he's only made that argument once or twice, when most of the time he never makes any kind of states' rights argument.


OK, I'm pretty much a "Darn the political considerations" type of person, but I literally see no actual benefit from saying that.  I don't think any state is  anywhere near legalizing everything else.

Politically speaking, something like "I support state's rights, but no state is actually going to legalize heroin" or something to that effect is probably smarter than "States should be allowed to legalize heroin."  Again, I don't actually care, I think this game is way too rigged to actually win, but I'm just saying.



> Rand Paul has an excellent voting record, yet libertarians still attack him.


Sanctions aren't "Excellent."  nor was the NDAA 2013 (Yes, I know that wasn't the indefinite detention law, but he still shouldn't have voted for a huge defense budget.)

"Not as bad as everyone else"  isn't the same as "Excellent."

Rand isn't a libertarian either, in fact, he was just pretty darn clear that he's not.




> And they say we're sensitive 
> 
> This isn't "attacking"; this is criticism of Rand's approach. If anyone was "attacked", it was libertarians by Rand.


This.




> Exactly. 
> 
> Oh I don't agree with drones, now I'm attacking Obama. Poor elite.


To be fair, Obama deserves attacking as the serial killing, pro-child murder both before and after birth anti freedom capital criminal scumbag that he is.




> That's an awful big 1%...Rand is anti libertarian and pro Israel.


He's not libertarian, but I don't know that he's "Anti-libertarian."  As for "Pro-Israel" that's MOSTLY just rhetoric.



> Anti libertarian, even though he just called himself a "libertarian Republican"?
> 
> Rand's pro Israel...so what? So is Amash, and likely Massie too.
> 
> Heck, even Ron claimed to be pro-Israel when he ran for president.
> 
> Good luck getting a right wing "anti-Israel" candidate elected, either Republican or third party.


Ron Paul wouldn't have said "An attack on Israel is an attack on the US."  Granted, I know that that's softer than the typical GOP position that "An attack BY Israel is an attack on the US" but I still don't like it, and Rand did still say it.

He doesn't need to be anti-Israel, that would be stupid, but he should support a true noninterventionist foreign policy.




> In Ron's own words, they stand for the same thing 99% of the time.


And Ron is correct on what he says about 99% of the time




> He did not flip flop. His voted is to authorize 650bn of appropriations not for the bill containing the indefinite detention language.
> 
> But you'll never understand it.


I understand the difference, no way in crap would I vote for him if he hadn't voted against the NDAA2012.  I still don't like that he voted for the "Defense" budget though.



> The bottom-line, to me is, the Rand-haters crowd here is so desperate, so hungry for anything in which to beat Rand Paul over the head with, that they're forced to take issue with stupid crap like this or Rand Paul saying Obama's views could not be any 'gayer'.
> 
> You guys have some points on things such as Iran sanctions, but then you turn around and look foolish by hypersensitively hyperventilating on yawn-inducing "issues" like this.  I know Rand Paul is not giving you as much real ammo as you'd like, but find better things to cling to.


Calling Obama "Gay" is probably a compliment compared to what he really is, but I actually find that comment sort of humorous.  Then again, I'm not gay, and I could understand why any gay person would be upset with being compared to the most evil man on the planet.  



> This coming from a _Ron Paul_ supporter website.  Yeah, he didn't have any fanatical supporters in 2007-2008 or 2011-2012...
> 
> Oh wait, I remember this site all falling over themselves to defend him no matter what.  Be it earmarks, newsletters, donations from Don Black, Alex Jones appearances, blanket endorsement of Nader and McKinney, comments about Osama and Chris Kyle, debate performances, campaign hires, support for Lamar Smith, support of Don Young, Paul's refusal to debate after all the complaining about the media and the debates, 'Terrorist Nations' campaign commercial, etc. ,etc. ,etc.


The newsletters weren't written by Paul.  I'll admit that it was negligence on his part to absolutely trust Rockwell, who in turn made a blunder by absolutely trusting one of his friends, but Paul didn't write them.  That people seriously bring that up HERE just makes me laugh.

Who cares if he appeared on Alex Jones?  I don't know anything about Jones, so I don't really know if he's a "Nutter" or not, but wwho cares?

Black is a scumbag, yes, but if Black wants to give Ron Paul money, no duh he should take it!  Isn't it better for a libertarian crusader like Paul to have the money than a racist scumbag?  Now, if there were some kind of requirement attached to the money, such as publicly acknoweldging Stormfront or something, than I'd agree with you, but just taking the money by itself is not a problem.

I know Lamar Smith was a joke, and I don't know the other guy, but I expect that that isn't a good guy either, but endorsements don't mean MUCH.  Ron didn't endorse Nader or that other chick either, he endorsed third party candidates.  I'm no Nader fan, but compared to the crap we have now?  No contest.  It was an attempt to shame the wannabe serial killers like Mccain and Obama.  Good for him.  Ron Paul eventually gave a specific endorrsement to Baldwin, clearly te best candidate, in the end.

As for refusing to debate, I can understand not wanting to even be in the same ROOM with serial killers.  When Ron did waste his time with them, he was far nicer than I could ever be.  Granted, I've argued with individuals who don't know better and I'm courteous, but the politicians know better and I know they know better.






> I'll add to this by saying that we need more people who who agree with even 80-90% of the important issues to enact change, we've seen that 1 person who is with us 100% (Ron) is not nearly enough.
> 
> That's not a knock on Ron, but the simple truth that he's only 1 man. We need a coalition around ideals, we need not pretend we all agree or even like eachother.


Yeah, this.



> Mitt Romney and John McCain seemed to...
> 
> Regardless of that point, I'll say it again: the crowd here raising a ruckus over this doesn't represent any substantial number of votes.  You want to believe the Rand haters here and on Daily Paul hold some big sway, but their belief they do is simply:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect


Mitt Romney and John Mccain got a  LOT of votes from people who hate liberty.  Rand won't get nearly as many.  I think Rand really does need the Ron Paul Republicans.  Granted, I still intend to register Republican in order to vote for Rand, but I'm just saying.




> $#@! that. Paul Ryan 2016!


OK, Rand's not perfect but at least he's not a total joke.  Ryan is a joke...

----------


## FrankRep

*How to piss a Libertarian off:*

Just Say: 

"I'm not a libertarian. I'm a libertarian Republican. I'm a constitutional conservative."

- Rand Paul

----------


## erowe1

> LOL Raimondo in a primary that would be so funny. Why not shoot for Lew Rockwell or Tom DiLorenzo hahahaha? I'd pay to see that.


Raimondo would be better. But anyone like that would be great.

----------


## torchbearer

> *How to piss a Libertarian off:*
> 
> Just Say: 
> 
> "I'm not a libertarian. I'm a libertarian Republican. I'm a constitutional conservative."
> 
> - Rand Paul


how to piss off neophytes.
don't confuse these cubs with the grey bearded bears.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *How to piss a Libertarian off:*
> 
> Just Say: 
> 
> "I'm not a libertarian. I'm a libertarian Republican. I'm a constitutional conservative."
> 
> - Rand Paul


That's NOT what this thread has been about.  Randroids sure are dense!

----------


## erowe1

> That's NOT what this thread has been about


That's 100% what this thread is about.

----------


## supermario21

> Be careful what you wish for. They wouldn't win, but they could influence the outcome.


In favor of liberty or statism? I actually like all three of them a lot. I used to hate Lew but I've gotten hooked to LRC. My only fear is that they'd drive even more people away from Rand rather than make him seem rational.

----------


## FrankRep

> That's NOT what this thread has been about.  Randroids sure are dense!


I, also, do NOT Advocate Everyone Run Around With No Clothes On And Smoke Pot.

Do you? No? Great, you just agreed with Rand Paul.

----------


## Spikender

> I, also, do NOT Advocate Everyone Run Around With No Clothes On And Smoke Pot.
> 
> Do you? No? Great, you just agreed with Rand Paul.


Who IS advocating that?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Be careful what you wish for. They wouldn't win, but they could influence the outcome.


I'd take any of those guys over Rand, but I don't want them running against Rand.  That's just bad strategy, IMO.  The only way I'd support that is if Rand actually got to a point where we, as a liberty movement, decided that he's really just part of the establishment, one of the million traitors in government, and not worth our time.  Honestly, and I know some disagree with me, but from what I've seen from Cruz so far, I feel that way about him.  Granted, he's probably the absolute best the establishment has to vote for, but I believe he's ultimately with the establishment, not with us.  I wouldn't vote for him.  I might prefer him over the other guy, but I'd vote third party.  If Cruz were the "Liberty candidate" I'd absolutely favor one of the "Fringe" (I put that in quotes because that's how they are perceived, even though I really like them) guys messing with Cruz if he got into the primary.  Rand, I feel, is still worth supporting, despite his flaws.



> But clearly there are those here who do.


Yep.  They're like Neo-Bushes.  "For us or against us"




> He's definitely not. That's part of what he wants.
> 
> The most important people aren't the ones like you with reasonable criticisms though. It's the hysterical ones. Rand needs to make sure all the most embarrassing elements from his dad's coalition are visibly and vocally against him. He's doing a good job so far.


I get what he's doing but its still annoyingg.  I also suspect that this may hurt him when he needs a few more votes and half of Ron Paul's base isn't voting for him.




> That's all part of the process. Hopefully we can even get Justin Raimondo or someone like that to run in the Republican primaries with the backing of some of Ron's supporters and attack Rand from the libertarian side. Those folks have a very important role to play for us, and we shouldn't begrudge it.


Is it bad that I'd be tempted to vote for Raimondo?  I'd still try to convince other people to vote for Rand, but if Raymondo was actually on the ballot, what the heck its only one vote, right?



> LOL Raimondo in a primary that would be so funny. Why not shoot for Lew Rockwell or Tom DiLorenzo hahahaha? I'd pay to see that.


I like Rockwell, but he does strike me as "Nuts" a solid half the time.  I almost get the feel that Rockwell even blames the US for things that isn't our government's fault (North Korea and South Korea being hostile to eachother, for instance, is NOT our fault).  I recall that Rockwell also said, as an absolute "People ALWAYS have a right to secede and practice lifestyles that we see as immoral."  Now, normally I would agree with him, but in context he was talking about forced marriages for children.  I'm sorry, I'm pretty darn libertarian, but if a tiny section of the country (Not a state, that would be more akin to foreign interventionism but a single town or something) was doing something horrible within their borders and they attempted to secede and the state governor asked me for help... I'd absolutely support forcing the single town not to abuse a segment of their populace.  

Lew Rockwell, if nothing else, is not cut out for politics.  Ron Paul struck the right balance between being solid on principle but not being "Crazy."  I don't see a "Rockwell movement" actually getting anywhere.
If we were going to run an absolute anarchist candidate I'd prefer Tom Woods

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I, also, do NOT Advocate Everyone Run Around With No Clothes On And Smoke Pot.
> 
> Do you? No? Great, you just agreed with Rand Paul.


I suggest you read Icymudpuppy's (OP) posts in this thread again.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> That's NOT what this thread has been about.  Randroids sure are dense!


Is "Randroid" what you're calling yourself now?




> Rand Paul: I'm Not a libertarian...

----------


## FrankRep

> Who IS advocating that?


A large percentage of Conservatives see the actions of the pot-head, hippie libertarians and feel that is what libertarianism leads to. Rand Paul is saying that he does NOT Advocate the pot-head, hippie libertarian stereotype perceptions.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Is "Randroid" what you're calling yourself now?


Why would I ??

----------


## Brett85

> *How to piss a Libertarian off:*
> 
> Just Say: 
> 
> "I'm not a libertarian. I'm a libertarian Republican. I'm a constitutional conservative."
> 
> - Rand Paul


He might piss Constitutional Conservatives off if he makes it sounds like he supports the federal drug war.  You don't have to be a libertarian to understand that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to ban any drug.

----------


## Christian Liberty

A Randroid is someone who believes Rand is immune to all criticism, and worships him as God.  Those of you who think that way already know who you are.  Those of us who are Rand supporters who do NOT think he is immune to all criticism also know who we are.

----------


## Brett85

> A large percentage of Conservatives see the actions of the pot-head, hippie libertarians and feel that is what libertarianism leads to. Rand Paul is saying that he does NOT Advocate the pot-head, hippie libertarian stereotype perceptions.


The last poll I saw showed that about 35% of conservatives support legalizing marijuana, and that number is growing quickly, with a majority of young conservatives supporting legalization.  It's hardly an issue where there's a consensus among conservatives.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I really don't think you Rand supporters are as clueless about the purpose of this thread as you're pretending to be.

----------


## FrankRep

> I really don't think you Rand supporters are as clueless about the purpose of this thread as you're pretending to be.


Not all of us want open borders or want Heroin legalized. Rand Paul needs to distance himself from that.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Does this mean I'm getting my own subforum?


Congrats  I want one too!

----------


## Spikender

> A large percentage of Conservatives see the actions of the pot-head, hippie libertarians and feel that is what libertarianism leads to. Rand Paul is saying that he does NOT Advocate the pot-head, hippie libertarian stereotype perceptions.


Is he saying that he doesn't advocate that stereotype, or is he saying that he isn't one of THOSE libertarians?

Cause I honestly don't know which way to take his statement.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Is he saying that he doesn't advocate that stereotype, or is he saying that he isn't one of THOSE libertarians?
> 
> Cause I honestly don't know which way to take his statement.


The way I took it is that he was saying he wasn't an anarchist, nor was he a libertine.

----------


## FrankRep

> Is he saying that he doesn't advocate that stereotype, or is he saying that he isn't one of THOSE libertarians?
> 
> Cause I honestly don't know which way to take his statement.


Rand Paul is talking to Conservatives and many Conservatives view Libertarians as pot-head hippies. Rand Paul doesn't support being a pot-head hippie.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> That's NOT what this thread has been about.  Randroids sure are dense!


Randroids love to play pretend and deny reality, as demonstrated heavily in this thread.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Randroids love to play pretend and deny reality, as demonstrated heavily in this thread.


What's with the Randroid stuff?  Did you just join FOX news or something?

----------


## Spikender

> The way I took it is that he was saying he wasn't an anarchist, nor was he a libertine.


My main issue with the statement is just the fact that he had to bring up smoking pot and running around nude.

There's was no reason for that. The statement would've worked without that, especially since it almost reinforces the very stereotype some here are saying he's trying to diminish.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He might piss Constitutional Conservatives off if he makes it sounds like he supports the federal drug war.  You don't have to be a libertarian to understand that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to ban any drug.


I've honestly never actually met a constitutional conservative who *cared* about this issue.  A lot of times, they'll agree with me, but it still doesn't mean much to me.  I've talked  to my dad (Who would be a constitutional conservative) about this issue and while he agrees with me that Washington DC has no business telling Colorado or Washington what to do with their marijuana laws, its not an issue that's going to get him fired up either.  My grandfather would also broadly be in this category, but his system for deciding who to vote for is basically only "Are they pro-life?"  (Somewhat laughably, he actually did vote for Mitt Romney.)

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> What's with the Randroid stuff?  Did you just join FOX news or something?


After being called a "Paultard" by the Ron Paul haters for years, I'm not bothered by being called "Randroid" by this site's fringe whiners.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand Paul is talking to Conservatives and many Conservatives view Libertarians as pot-head hippies. Rand Paul doesn't support being a pot-head hippie.


In other words, if you believe in freedom and support legalizing marijuana, that means that you actually support using marijuana yourself and would advocate that others use it.  It couldn't simply be that some of us don't want to spend billions of taxpayer dollars locking up non violent people and putting them in prison.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> What's with the Randroid stuff?  Did you just join FOX news or something?


Edit: Rand Slurpers

That's mine, I coined it earlier in this thread.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The last poll I saw showed that about 35% of conservatives support legalizing marijuana, and that number is growing quickly, with a majority of young conservatives supporting legalization.  It's hardly an issue where there's a consensus among conservatives.


IIRC 60% of conservatives also feel that, regardless of whether they support legalizing marijuana or not, that a state has a right to do so.

I honestly see no good reason why conservative principles should be opposed to pot legalization, after all, aren't these people supposed to be in favor of small government?  I thought conservatives were supposed to be opposed to big government making health decisions for people?




> What's with the Randroid stuff?  Did you just join FOX news or something?


No, its just an accurate description for some of you guys.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

This thread is alot easier to read now that the Rand Slurpers are on ignore.

----------


## Brett85

> I honestly see no good reason why conservative principles should be opposed to pot legalization, after all, aren't these people supposed to be in favor of small government?  I thought conservatives were supposed to be opposed to big government making health decisions for people?


That's what I thought.  Apparently Frank Rep doesn't believe in the kind of small government conservatism that I support.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> After being called a "Paultard" by the Ron Paul haters for years, I'm not bothered by being called "Randroid" by this site's fringe whiners.


For the record, I'm not calling you a Randroid.  I said that a Randroid is someone who worships Rand as God and believes he is immune to all criticism.  Only you can decide whether you fit in that category or not.  

Calling someone a "Paultard" is the most laughable insult ever, considering how brilliant the elder Dr. Paul is.  If we called you guys "Randtards" that would be a stupid criticism as well.  I like Rand, a lot.  I think he's right about most issues.  But sometimes he's frankly wrong and deserves to be called out. Those on the sight that think virtually any criticism of Rand is offensive are the Randroids.






> In other words, if you believe in freedom and support legalizing marijuana, that means that you actually support using marijuana yourself and would advocate that others use it.  It couldn't simply be that some of us don't want to spend billions of taxpayer dollars locking up non violent people and putting them in prison.


That, and that we think kidnapping is immoral


I suppose Big Government Conservatives will just never get it...

----------


## FrankRep

I think libertarians sometimes suffer from "libertarian Self-sabotage Syndrome" where as soon as anyone libertarian-related starts winning or becomes successful, they must immediately attack that person with full force like a pack of rabid dogs.

The biggest enemy of libertarians are not statists, on the contrary, the libertarians biggest enemy are other libertarians.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think libertarians sometimes suffer from "Libertarian Self-sabotage Syndrome" where as soon as anyone libertarian-related starts winning or becomes successful, they must immediately attack that person with full force like a pack of rabid dogs.
> 
> The biggest enemy of Libertarians are not Statists, on the contrary, the Libertarians biggest enemy are other Libertarians.


No kidding.

----------


## jmdrake

> smh. this thread is useless bickering. 
> 
> Lets look at the facts here
> 1)Rand used censorship MONTHS AGO to subvert truth about the election


Link?




> 2)He has been bought out by the same lobbyists his father boycotted


Opinion




> 3)He supports drone warfare [in our own country I might add, which seems opposite of what freedom is about]


Misleading.  Rand actually stood up *against* drone warfare.  More importantly, he's against extrajudicial killing of any kind.  The point that he made, which apparently went over your head, is that at a certain level it doesn't matter what technology a government agent uses to kill you, but rather whether the circumstances justify the killing.  Adam Kokesh, no "Rand fan", explains the problem with your "facts."







> 4) He not only supports the GOP, but supports the Israeli government.


Does he support sending money to Israel?  No?  Then everything else is irrelevant.




> 5)Has flip flopped on the issue of drugs and the war on marijuana


His position hasn't changed.  Drugs are a states issue, not a federal one.




> 6) and lastly no longer will talk about this!


And Ron Paul won't talk about the "truth about 9/11" whatever he believes that to be.







> In conclusion don't be a sheep QUESTION EVERYONE, EVERYTHING, AND DO NOT CREATE A NEW PARADIGM!


Sure.  Just be honest, thorough and consistent in your questioning.

----------


## fr33

> I think libertarians sometimes suffer from "Libertarian Self-sabotage Syndrome" where as soon as anyone libertarian-related starts winning or becomes successful, they must immediately attack that person with full force like a pack of rabid dogs.
> 
> The biggest enemy of Libertarians are not Statists, on the contrary, the Libertarians biggest enemy are other Libertarians.


I can only think that you are referring to the party since you use the big L.

----------


## Spikender

> I think libertarians sometimes suffer from "Libertarian Self-sabotage Syndrome" where as soon as anyone libertarian-related starts winning or becomes successful, they must immediately attack that person with full force like a pack of rabid dogs.
> 
> The biggest enemy of Libertarians are not Statists, on the contrary, the Libertarians biggest enemy are other Libertarians.


That is a very inaccurate description of what's going on here.

But I agree that our biggest enemy happens to be ourselves.

Hence why I've always thought that, at the very least, RPF can never be called an echo chamber.

----------


## erowe1

> Oh. Dear. God.  are you dense?





> It's pretty easy for almost everyone else. I can't help it if you're dense.





> That's NOT what this thread has been about.  Randroids sure are dense!


Please consult:
http://thesaurus.com/browse/dense

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's what I thought.  Apparently Frank Rep doesn't believe in the kind of small government conservatism that I support.


I guess not EVERYONE here would be considered a radical libertarian in the real world

Frank just admitted that he supports the drug war, at least for heroin (And who knows what else.)  Eric Peters posted a really good article on this today: The bottom line is that if you seek to deny someone else the right to be stupid, someone is going to use that same government to infringe on your freedom.  I view basically all of government action through the Golden Rule.  As a Christian, I don't think it would be right to use institutional violence against the peaceful because I wouldn't want anyone to do that to me.

Just wondering, TradCon, what do you see as the fundamental difference between a small government conservative and a libertarian, and what side do you consider yourself to be on?  I'm just wondering because I've always struggled to define exactly where moderate libertarianism ends and small government conservatism begins.

----------


## Michigan11

Week 1 Day 5 12th hour and 45 minutes into this thread discussion....

----------


## jmdrake

> This thread is alot easier to read now that the Rand Slurpers are on ignore.


Are you going to put Alex Jones on ignore?

----------


## FrankRep

> That's what I thought.  Apparently Frank Rep doesn't believe in the kind of small government conservatism that I support.


I'm trying to get Rand Paul elected. Rand Paul will never get the nomination with your radical "legalize Heroin" platform.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think libertarians sometimes suffer from "libertarian Self-sabotage Syndrome" where as soon as anyone libertarian-related starts winning or becomes successful, they must immediately attack that person with full force like a pack of rabid dogs.
> 
> The biggest enemy of libertarians are not statists, on the contrary, the libertarians biggest enemy are other libertarians.


That would require Rand Paul to actually be a libertarian.  Which is hillarious if you actually listen to what he says.  Rand is a conservative Republican first and a Ron Paul supporter second.  I can live with that but I'm not going to pretend that its not true, nor am I going to pretend that Rand has actually managed to hang in Washington District of Criminals this long without picking up the slightest of actual influence.  Rand Paul is still better than anyone else in the senate but I'm not convinced that he's exactly the same as he was before he went into DC.

----------


## Spikender

> Are you going to put Alex Jones on ignore?


Come now, that was before Rand said this. Play fair.

----------


## Brett85

> Just wondering, TradCon, what do you see as the fundamental difference between a small government conservative and a libertarian, and what side do you consider yourself to be on?  I'm just wondering because I've always struggled to define exactly where moderate libertarianism ends and small government conservatism begins.


I'm not sure.  I do have some disagreements with libertarians, but the drug war isn't one of them.  I disagree with libertarians on a few issues like abortion, gay marriage, border security, and the death penalty.  Many libertarians would disagree with me on those issues.  My ideology overall is basically a combination of libertarianism and conservatism.  I'm kind of a "libertarian conservative."  That's kind of what Rand calls himself, but it seems as though I'm quite a bit more libertarian than Rand when I support completely ending the drug war and basically legalizing everything in which there's no victim.  (Gay marriage is not a crime, so I don't believe my rule applies to that issue)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm trying to get Rand Paul elected. Rand Paul will never get the nomination with your radical "legalize Heroin" platform.


You know what?  If I have to advocate institutionalized kidnapping in order to win, than screw winning.  Its not actually doable anyway...

All TradCon has actually told Rand Paul to do is to say that drug laws should be left to the states.  He won't even clearly convey that message.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Are you going to put Alex Jones on ignore?


Or Ron Paul: http://www.ronpaul.com/2013-04-26/ro...t-99-the-same/

Or himself: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...a-libertarian/

----------


## FrankRep

> That would require Rand Paul to actually be a libertarian.


Rand Paul is a "libertarian Republican." Remember?

----------


## Brett85

> I'm trying to get Rand Paul elected. Rand Paul will never get the nomination with your radical "legalize Heroin" platform.


Again, two words:  *States' rights.*  Conservatives generally support states' rights and can come to support the position that drug policy should be a state issue.

----------


## FrankRep

> You know what? If I have to advocate institutionalized kidnapping in order to win, than screw winning. Its not actually doable anyway...


Libertarians have perfected the art of not winning. That's one of the reasons why you sabotage yourself when you are actually winning.

----------


## FrankRep

> Again, two words:  *States' rights.*  Conservatives generally support states' rights and can come to support the position that drug policy should be a state issue.


Two words for you: *Lost Primary*

----------


## Spikender

> Libertarians have perfected the art of not winning. That's one of the reasons why you sabotage yourself when you are actually winning.


The problem is that too many libertarians have souls.

If only we could perfect the art of shedding those useless little things...

----------


## Brett85

> Two words for you: *Lost Primary*


Are you kidding?  Because states' rights are something that conservatives are opposed to?

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Come now, that was before Rand said this. Play fair.


And yet, I bet Alex Jones, the King of Overreacting, won't overreact to Rand Paul saying this.  That should tell you something.

Alex Jones' Wikipedia: "He has also called himself a paleoconservative and an "aggressive constitutionalist".

----------


## Spikender

> And yet, I bet Alex Jones, the King of Overreacting, won't overreact to Rand Paul saying this.  That should tell you something.
> 
> Alex Jones' Wikipedia: "He has also called himself a paleoconservative and an "aggressive constitutionalist".


What is "overreacting" in your book?

I don't think anyone here has even overreacted.

Because at this point, I expect all of these responses. So to me, this is just reacting.

But on that note, notice that Alex Jones didn't call himself a paleoconservative while also saying that he's "Not a conservative - I don't advocate being a war-mongering douchenozzle who only hungers for more war. I'm a paleoconservative. An aggresive constituationalist."

Would that have been too hard for Rand to do? You know, to not add that part on?

----------


## FrankRep

> Are you kidding?  Because states' rights are something that conservatives are opposed to?


"Legalize Heroin" = Lost Primary / Lost Election

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not sure.  I do have some disagreements with libertarians, but the drug war isn't one of them.  I disagree with libertarians on a few issues like abortion, gay marriage, border security, and the death penalty.  Many libertarians would disagree with me on those issues.  My ideology overall is basically a combination of libertarianism and conservatism.  I'm kind of a "libertarian conservative."  That's kind of what Rand calls himself, but it seems as though I'm quite a bit more libertarian than Rand when I support completely ending the drug war and basically legalizing everything in which there's no victim.  (Gay marriage is not a crime, so I don't believe my rule applies to that issue)


Abortion is definitely up for debate for libertarians at any level.  The death penalty is also definitely up for debate at any level (I'm assuming you're for capital punishment and you think libertarians are against it?  Have you read what Walter Block, Murray Rothbard, and Stephan Kinsella have said about it?  All ancaps, all for the death penalty in varying circumstances [IIRC, Block and Rothbard supported it just for murder, while Kinsella even supported it for other things that cause near-equal harm as murder as well {Kinsella wrote an entire long Mises journal on his views on capital punishment, and I can't really quickly summarize it.]  Granted, of course, libertarians CAN be abolitionists on the death penalty, but they don't have to be.)  I guess an anarcho-capitalist wouldn't really believe in border security, at least not long-term, but I see no reason why a minarchist would have a problem with that.  Immigration is a bit of a tricky one that libertarians don't really agree on either, anarcho-capitalists all agree with each other on the ultimate solution but disagree on what the second best solution in a statist world is.

The only issue on that list that I could see arguably being simple is gay marriage.  Do you disagree with getting the government out of marriage?  Admittedly, when you remove that as an option (And it probably isn't an option in real life), what exactly the second best option is becomes tricky.

Me personally?  I'm pro-life.  I support the death penalty completely on principle, although I'm increasingly more uncomfortable with it in practice (I'd rather let a guilty man escape the death penalty than to use the irreversible punishment on an innocent man), and I definitely support protecting the border but I'm against most immigration restrictions, if that makes sense.

----------


## Spikender

> "Legalize Heroin" = Lost Primary / Lost Election


Legalize Anything = Lost Primary / Lost Election

----------


## Brett85

> "Legalize Heroin" = Lost Primary / Lost Election


I'm not saying that Rand should say that Heroin should be legalized.  He can say that he's opposed to Heroin legalization but still say that matters of crime should be handled at the state level under our Constitution.  Again, that's just part of being a "Constitutional Conservative."

----------


## erowe1

> But on that note, notice that Alex Jones didn't call himself a paleoconservative while also saying that he's "Not a conservative - I don't advocate being a war-mongering douchenozzle who only hungers for more war. I'm a paleoconservative. An aggresive constituationalist."
> 
> Would that have been too hard for Rand to do? You know, to not add that part on?


Rand could have not added that part. But it's better that he did.

----------


## Spikender

> Rand could have not added that part. But it's better that he did.


How is it better that he did?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Again, two words:  *States' rights.*  Conservatives generally support states' rights and can come to support the position that drug policy should be a state issue.


A real conservative would agree with this, but that makes me wonder how many Republicans are actually conservatives.  Granted, 60% of them may agree with state's rights on  pot, but at least some portion of that group isn't going to agree to it for heroin.




> Libertarians have perfected the art of not winning. That's one of the reasons why you sabotage yourself when you are actually winning.


We aren't winning.  Rand Paul MIGHT be winning.  But Rand Paul isn't nearly as radical as I am.  I'm still losing.




> Are you kidding?  Because states' rights are something that conservatives are opposed to?


Again, Republicans =/= conservatives.  Every real conservative would agree with you.  I'm not sure how many Republicans will.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand Paul is a "libertarian Republican." Remember?


I know what he called himself.  But its a total joke.  And I say that as someone who is planning to vote for Rand in 2016.  He's not libertarian.

----------


## FrankRep

> I'm not saying that Rand should say that Heroin should be legalized.  He can say that he's opposed to Heroin legalization but still say that matters of crime should be handled at the state level under our Constitution.  Again, that's just part of being a "Constitutional Conservative."


Look up "Political Strategy" someone. You want Rand Paul to commit political suicide.

----------


## Spikender

> Look up "Political Strategy" someone. You want Rand Paul to commit political suicide.


Sad that advocating following the Constitution is political suicide.

This country man.

----------


## Brett85

> The only issue on that list that I could see arguably being simple is gay marriage.  Do you disagree with getting the government out of marriage?  Admittedly, when you remove that as an option (And it probably isn't an option in real life), what exactly the second best option is becomes tricky.


I'm not quite there yet.  I recognize that getting the government out of marriage is the libertarian position, so I don't claim to have the libertarian position on that issue.  I mean I support getting rid of some of the benefits.  For example, I think it should be up to private hospitals to determine visitation rights, rather than having that mandated on them by the government.  There are also other things within marriage that I think should be privatized.  But, I have a hard time with the idea that there should be no definition of marriage at all.  We have an amendment in my state that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and I don't really see a problem with that.  It's not an amendment that contains penalties for any victimless activity.  It doesn't throw gays in prison for any victimless activity.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Frank- If you don't support the drug war, at least say that publicly rather than publicly acting like you do and then privately telling me otherwise while stinging me with a neg rep.  Not that I actually care about the rep, but that's just a cheap shot.

----------


## tsai3904

> It couldn't simply be that some of us don't want to spend billions of taxpayer dollars locking up non violent people and putting them in prison.


Then you and Rand are in agreement.  Rand's said many times he doesn't want to throw people in jail and would rather send them to counseling.

----------


## Brett85

> Look up "Political Strategy" someone. You want Rand Paul to commit political suicide.


Is it political suicide for him to say that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage?  Social conservatives care far more about marriage than they care about drugs.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not quite there yet.  I recognize that getting the government out of marriage is the libertarian position, so I don't claim to have the libertarian position on that issue.  I mean I support getting rid of some of the benefits.  For example, I think it should be up to private hospitals to determine visitation rights, rather than having that mandated on them by the government.  There are also other things within marriage that I think should be privatized.  But, I have a hard time with the idea that there should be no definition of marriage at all.  We have an amendment in my state that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and I don't really see a problem with that.  It's not an amendment that contains penalties for any victimless activity.  It doesn't throw gays in prison for any victimless activity.


OK, fair enough.  So basically, you support the government endorsing morality, but not enforcing morality?  I'm not saying that's a problem, I'm just curious.

As a constitutional conservative, do you agree that the states should be deciding marriage laws?

Because in reality, that would probably be good enough for me.  I don't really care about that issue.  This is one of those issues wheere I'd rather government not be involved, but its also not really one of the biggest problems I have with government.

----------


## Brett85

> Then you and Rand are in agreement.  Rand's said many times he doesn't want to throw people in jail and would rather send them to counseling.


Yeah, that's true.  It's still forced counseling that I don't agree with, but it's a penalty that's at least better than prison time.

----------


## FrankRep

> @Frank- If you don't support the drug war, at least say that publicly rather than publicly acting like you do and then privately telling me otherwise while stinging me with a neg rep.  Not that I actually care about the rep, but that's just a cheap shot.


Stop lying about me. I don't support the Drug War, but it's political suicide for Rand Paul to support legalizing Heroin, Crack, etc...

----------


## erowe1

> How is it better that he did?


For lots of reasons.

Most importantly, it drives away just the people Rand wants to drive away.

It allows him to disavow the label "libertarian" and sound like he's coming from the same place conservatives are with respect to them.

Finally, he gets to do that without compromising any policies. As long as he keeps his clothes on and doesn't get stoned in public, he won't have to flip flop on this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, that's true.  It's still forced counseling that I don't agree with, but it's a penalty that's at least better than prison time.


Yeah, I don't like it, but at the same time, it is better than the status quo.

But no libertarian would support even that penalty.  Rand Paul isn't a libertarian.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Stop lying about me. I don't support the Drug War, but it's political suicide for Rand Paul to support legalizing Heroin, Crack, etc...


Is it political suicide for him to say its a state issue?

----------


## Brett85

> OK, fair enough.  So basically, you support the government endorsing morality, but not enforcing morality?  I'm not saying that's a problem, I'm just curious.
> 
> As a constitutional conservative, do you agree that the states should be deciding marriage laws?
> 
> Because in reality, that would probably be good enough for me.  I don't really care about that issue.  This is one of those issues wheere I'd rather government not be involved, but its also not really one of the biggest problems I have with government.


Yeah, basically.  I don't really have a problem with a state government defining marriage as what it is, but I don't want to use force to prevent anyone from engaging in any victimless activity.  I'm not in favor of having "victimless crimes."  As for the federal part, the federal government doesn't have the authority to define marriage without creating a Constitutional amendment, and that's a waste of time and has no chance of ever passing.  That's something I used to support, but lately I've been thinking that I don't really like the idea of "unmarrying people," that an amendment should be passed that nullifies gay marriages that already exist.  So I would say that I've basically changed my position to only supporting state marriage amendments.

----------


## Spikender

> For lots of reasons.
> 
> Most importantly, it drives away just the people Rand wants to drive away.
> 
> It allows him to disavow the label "libertarian" and sound like he's coming from the same place conservatives are with respect to them.
> 
> Finally, he gets to do that without compromising any policies. As long as he keeps his clothes on and doesn't get stoned in public, he won't have to flip flop on this.


Drives away the people he wants to drive away? So implying that libertarians want to get high and take off all of their clothes gets rid of... who exactly? Libertarians, which would be the people he just described?

Crazy how the term conservative hasn't been tainted but apparently the word libertarian is toxic. We've had a lot of so-called conservatives failing over and over again for decades now, how is that term not toxic yet?

Words have a lot of power. Obviously I don't believe Rand's words will have an effect on any policy decisions he makes, but they can be easily misconstrued and seen as throwing people under the bus.

I for one don't think this was a wise move, but it's not a huge mistake, so I won't make too big of a deal over it.

----------


## FrankRep

> Is it political suicide for him to say that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage?  Social conservatives care far more about marriage than they care about drugs.


If Conservatives feel that Gay marriage is about to be legalized federally, they'll support getting the federal government out of marriage. 

Traditional Conservative, you should know this.

----------


## erowe1

> Is it political suicide for him to say its a state issue?


I don't think it's political suicide. But I would want him to go at least that far even if it cost him significant support.

The alternative is to say that there's something in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to ban those things. I can't see Rand saying that. And I'd be really disappointed if he did.

----------


## Brett85

> If Conservatives feel that Gay marriage is about to be legalized federally, they'll support getting the federal government out of marriage. 
> 
> Traditional Conservative, you should know this.


Is there any evidence that there's a movement to legalize gay marriage federally?  Has anyone in Congress introduced a bill to force all 50 states to recognize gay marriages?

----------


## FrankRep

> I don't think it's political suicide. But I would want him to go at least that far even if it cost him significant support.
> 
> The alternative is to say that there's something in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to ban those things. I can't see Rand saying that. And I'd be really disappointed if he did.


It's political suicide because the media will spin it that Rand Paul supports legalizing Heroin.

People in general don't understand states' rights.

----------


## Christian Liberty

If he actually said that, honestly, I'd probably be done with him.  I know drugs are just one issue but that's the biggest reason our prison population is so high.

Rand Paul is trying to walk a tricky line.  I'm willing to give him some leeway, but I do have my limits.  Stupid crap like this, yeah, I can let that go.  Meaningless votes for sanctions that everyone supports anyway (Well, I don't, and the 10% of Ron Paulers don't, but the entire political mainstream does), and can make him look like he respects the "Iranian Threat" and still vote against war, yeah I can live with that.  But if he actually argues that the Feds can ban drugs, that would make it obvious where his loyalties lie.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is there any evidence that there's a movement to legalize gay marriage federally?  Has anyone in Congress introduced a bill to force all 50 states to recognize gay marriages?


Obama wants one, but I think he's too busy bombing Muslims to seriously worry about it.




> It's political suicide because the media will spin it that Rand Paul supports legalizing Heroin.
> 
> People in general don't understand states' rights.


There are ways to word it to avoid that, but even still, who cares about the idiots?

----------


## erowe1

> Drives away the people he wants to drive away? So implying that libertarians want to get high and take off all of their clothes gets rid of... who exactly? Libertarians, which would be the people he just described?


It's not like "libertarian" means anything anyway. So he didn't imply that anyone who isn't a nudist pothead is one. He just said that when using that definition of "libertarian" he's not one. For who it drives away, take a look at this thread. He's doing a great job at what he needs to do here.




> Words have a lot of power. Obviously I don't believe Rand's words will have an effect on any policy decisions he makes, but they can be easily misconstrued and seen as throwing people under the bus.


Who? Nudist potheads?

OK, great, throw them under the bus. If I were one I'd volunteer myself to pretend I were offended just to help him.

----------


## BlackTerrel

Labels are just how they define you.  Rand is a good dude and the best we have.

By some peoples label even Ron Paul isn't a libertarian.  Who cares about labels?

This isn't an issue unless bored people want to make it one.

----------


## FrankRep

> Is there any evidence that there's a movement to legalize gay marriage federally?  Has anyone in Congress introduced a bill to force all 50 states to recognize gay marriages?


There's a fear that Obama might try an Executive Order or the supreme court will "Roe v. Wade" Gay Marriage.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Is it bad that he failed to get rid of me?  (LOL)

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Are you going to put Alex Jones on ignore?


I'm referring to those that defend Rand no matter what and troll anyone who questions His Holiness. I have no problem with anyone supporting Rand. I possibly will still vote for him as the best option, but I'm quickly becoming thoroughly disgusted with him.

Funny you should mention AJ, I've only listened to his show twice since September.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Labels are just how they define you.  Rand is a good dude and the best we have.
> 
> By some peoples label even Ron Paul isn't a libertarian.  Who cares about labels?
> 
> This isn't an issue unless bored people want to make it one.


Ron Paul is a libertarian by a plausible definition of that word.  Rand is not.

Granted, Ron isn't an ANARCHIST but not all libertarians are anarchists.  All libertarians are opposed to banning of victimless activities like drug use.

----------


## erowe1

> It's political suicide because the media will spin it that Rand Paul supports legalizing Heroin.
> 
> People in general don't understand states' rights.


If that's true then they need to be challenged to change their minds.

Rand's task isn't to be all things to all people. It's to define himself in a way that embraces just large enough of a coalition of support to win and challenge the status quo in the process.

----------


## FrankRep

> Is it bad that he failed to get rid of me?  (LOL)


Are you talking about me? You were spreading lies about me and I disapproved of your dirty tactics.

----------


## erowe1

> Is it bad that he failed to get rid of me?  (LOL)


No. As long as there's a vocal and visible contingent.

Plus, there's still time.

----------


## erowe1

> Are you talking about me? You were spreading lies about me and I disapproved of your dirty tactics.


I thought he was talking about Rand.

----------


## FrankRep

> If that's true then they need to be challenged to change their minds.
> 
> Rand's task isn't to be all things to all people. It's to define himself in a way that embraces just large enough of a coalition of support to win and challenge the status quo in the process.


It's your task to "change their minds."

Rand Paul's task, as a politician, is to get elected.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you talking about me? You were spreading lies about me and I disapproved of your dirty tactics.


I was talking about Rand Paul...




> No. As long as there's a vocal and visible contingent.
> 
> Plus, there's still time.


Am I hurting Rand by continuing to support him but criticizing him for what I perceive to be silly statements such as this one?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> That's NOT what this thread has been about.  Randroids sure are dense!


Is that a new term?  clever 

Look I don't know when the last time it was that you checked the demographics but more than half of Republican voters are some form of evangelical Christian.  You're not winning an election without them.  So Rand going on CBN and getting positive coverage is necessary.

Do you want to win 5% and snipe on the internet or do you want to effect real change in the country?  I want the latter.

----------


## erowe1

> It's your task to "change their minds."
> 
> Rand Paul's task, as a politician, is to get elected.


I think his task is both. And part of getting elected is proving to people that he's enough of a leader to do that.

----------


## erowe1

> Am I hurting Rand by continuing to support him but criticizing him for what I perceive to be silly statements such as this one?


I don't think so. But I don't think you need to worry about it. Just be yourself and leave the Machiavellian calculations up to the professionals.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...-new-high.html

I think what bothers some here is their impotency at stopping Rand Paul.  Rand Paul is jettisoning the people that need to be so, and he's polling higher nationally (17%) then Ron Paul _ever_ polled nationally, in any independent poll by any major polling agency.  I think Ron Paul's peak nationally was 13% or 14% in an early 2012 Gallup poll, after the field (and thus the polls) was narrowed down to only four candidates.

The little yappy dogs will continue to nip at Rand's heels over increasingly benign subject matter.  These blow-up threads were a lot less frequent back in 2011, because the same things said then didn't create the same faux drama they do now.  It's only going to get worse, because I think some here would rather Chris Christie be the GOP's presidential nominee than Rand Paul, if only so they can lie to themselves that Rand Paul lost because of their crowd's lack of support.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think so. But I don't think you need to worry about it. Just be yourself and leave the Machiavellian calculations up to the professionals.


Fair enough.  And for the record, I really DON'T bash Rand all the time.  I've already talked to a couple of my conservative teachers at my school and told them they should support him.  I've already talked to my dad, and I basically told him, no, I don't agree with Rand on everything but he's right up your (That is, my dad) alley."  I am trying to persuade conservatives to vote for him.  And I think he's a great conservative.  I'm just not really a conservative, I'm a libertarian, and therefore I'm not going to agree with everything that he says.

I'm fine with letting Rand be what he is but I definitely do think he IS more moderate than Ron was.  I feel like some people are simply lying to themselves on that matter.



> Is that a new term?  clever 
> 
> Look I don't know when the last time it was that you checked the demographics but more than half of Republican voters are some form of evangelical Christian.  You're not winning an election without them.  So Rand going on CBN and getting positive coverage is necessary.
> 
> Do you want to win 5% and snipe on the internet or do you want to effect real change in the country?  I want the latter.

----------


## Brett85

> http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...-new-high.html
> 
> I think what bothers some here is their impotency at stopping Rand Paul.  Rand Paul is jettisoning the people that need to be so, and he's polling higher nationally (17%) then Ron Paul _ever_ polled nationally, in any independent poll by any polling agency.  I think Ron Paul's peak nationally was 13% or 14% in an early 2012 Gallup poll, after the field (and thus the polls) was narrowed down to only four candidates.
> 
> The little yappy dogs will continue to nip at Rand's heels over increasingly benign subject matter.  These blow up threads were a lot less frequent back in 2011, because the same things said then didn't create the same faux drama they do now.  It's only going to get worse.


Lol, who wants to "stop" Rand Paul?  You and others seem to get this idea that any criticism of Rand at all means that we don't support him or are "Rand haters."  I personally support him but just make it known when I disagree with what he says and his strategy.

The most recent PPP poll has Rand back to 14% with a -6 favorability rating overall.  His favorability rating was quite a bit better the previous month.  I view that as a result of the drone debacle that was all over the news and Rand not taking firm stances in general.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...-new-high.html
> 
> I think what bothers some here is their impotency at stopping Rand Paul.  Rand Paul is jettisoning the people that need to be so, and he's polling higher nationally (17%) then Ron Paul _ever_ polled nationally, in any independent poll by any polling agency.  I think Ron Paul's peak nationally was 13% or 14% in an early 2012 Gallup poll, after the field (and thus the polls) was narrowed down to only four candidates.
> 
> The little yappy dogs will continue to nip at Rand's heels over increasingly benign subject matter.  These blow-up threads were a lot less frequent back in 2011, because the same things said then didn't create the same faux drama they do now.  It's only going to get worse, because I think some here would rather Chris Christie be the GOP's presidential nominee than Rand Paul, if only so they can lie to themselves that Rand Paul lost because of their crowd's lack of support.


Chris Christie is a real Republican, and a northeastern  one at that.  That means he's a progressive.  Rand, by contrast, is an actual conservative.  I'd take Rand Paul over Christie in a heartbeat.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Lol, who wants to "stop" Rand Paul?  You and others seem to get this idea that any criticism of Rand at all means that we don't support him or are "Rand haters."  I personally support him but just make it known when I disagree with what he says and his strategy.
> 
> The most recent PPP poll has Rand back to 14% with a -6 favorability rating overall.  His favorability rating was quite a bit better the previous month.  I view that as a result of the drone debacle that was all over the news and Rand not taking firm stances in general.


Is this 14% of Republicans or 14% of the country period?

Is that high enough that he actually has a chance?

----------


## Brett85

> Is this 14% of Republicans or 14% of the country period?
> 
> Is that high enough that he actually has a chance?


14% of Republicans.  Nationally he's behind Hillary Clinton by 10% and Joe Biden by 2%.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> The most recent PPP poll has Rand back to 14% with a -6 favorability rating overall.


"Back" to 14%?  It's in the margin of error of 17%.  Not to mention the positive state polls that have come out in Iowa and New Hampshire between PPP's last two national pollls.

People here would have killed for Ron Paul to be "back" to 14% in May 2009.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Is it too much to ask that someone on this forum who is close to the Senator's office ask him to clarify his statements and put his response on this board?  A simple apology voiced through a third party such as Mr. Collins that he personally is sending Rands assertion that his statement was just poorly worded and what he meant to say was "x...x".  That's all I want.  Some assertion that Rand is still listening to us.

----------


## fr33

> http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...-new-high.html
> 
> I think what bothers some here is their impotency at stopping Rand Paul.  Rand Paul is jettisoning the people that need to be so, and he's polling higher nationally (17%) then Ron Paul _ever_ polled nationally, in any independent poll by any major polling agency.  I think Ron Paul's peak nationally was 13% or 14% in an early 2012 Gallup poll, after the field (and thus the polls) was narrowed down to only four candidates.
> 
> The little yappy dogs will continue to nip at Rand's heels over increasingly benign subject matter.  These blow-up threads were a lot less frequent back in 2011, because the same things said then didn't create the same faux drama they do now.  It's only going to get worse, because I think some here would rather Chris Christie be the GOP's presidential nominee than Rand Paul, if only so they can lie to themselves that Rand Paul lost because of their crowd's lack of support.


Tbh Rand doesn't bother me near as much as people like you do. I can understand that Rand is going to fib and say things to please others but there is nothing wrong with pointing out when he says something wrong. According to your post, you don't want me to support Rand. Of course he'll get my vote but this stuff sure can help me to decide to keep my own money rather than donate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> "Back" to 14%?  It's in the margin of error of 17%.  Not to mention the positive state polls that have come out in Iowa and New Hampshire between PPP's last two national pollls.
> 
> People here would have killed for Ron Paul to be "back" to 14% in May 2009.


Ron Paul and his son aren't exactly the same.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

66 pages all because Rand insulted libertarians and pretended they all run around naked smoking weed. Just to get a few votes.

----------


## Brett85

> "Back" to 14%?  It's in the margin of error of 17%.  Not to mention the positive state polls that have come out in Iowa and New Hampshire between PPP's last two national pollls.
> 
> People here would have killed for Ron Paul to be "back" to 14% in May 2009.


Yeah, he's doing well overall.  But, I just don't necessarily think that watering down the message is why Rand is doing better than Ron.  Ron's problem was a variety of things, but very little of it had to do with his actual positions on the issues.  His problems were that,

1)  He was 76 years old, and no one considered him a serious candidate for President at that age.
2)  He was simply a house member rather than a Senator or a Governor.  It's hard to win the nomination of a major party if you're simply a house member.  I think it's only happened once before.
3)  He was a pretty bad debater and came across as shrill when he spoke.  Again, it just made him look like he wasn't a serious candidate.
4)  He framed his foreign policy views in the most offensive way possible to conservatives, constantly using "blowback" rhetoric rather than advocating non intervention by talking about fiscal conservatism.
5)  He refused to ever endorse the party's nominee, making it look to most Republicans like he wasn't really much of a Republican.

Rand doesn't have any of those problems.  He doesn't need to water down the message as much as he has in order to get support from people who didn't support Ron.

----------


## trey4sports

> *Is it too much to ask that someone on this forum who is close to the Senator's office ask him to clarify his statements and put his response on this board?*  A simple apology voiced through a third party such as Mr. Collins that he personally is sending Rands assertion that his statement was just poorly worded and what he meant to say was "x...x".  That's all I want.  Some assertion that Rand is still listening to us.




Yes. He has much bigger fish to fry than worrying about a couple thousand libertarians fretting about his choice of words.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Ron Paul and his son aren't exactly the same.


That's for sure.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes. He has much bigger fish to fry than worrying about a couple thousand libertarians fretting about his choice of words.


Yeah, that's certainly true.  He doesn't seem to care much about what we think of him.

----------


## trey4sports

> Yeah, that's certainly true.  He doesn't seem to care much about what we think of him.


it is what it is. He is putting a lot more weight toward courting the bigger, dumber, demographic as opposed to the more intellectual libertarian demographic. We'll just have to see if it pays off.

----------


## Brett85

I think this really just shows that our focus needs to be on electing members of Congress who will consistently advocate principles of liberty.  I'll still support Rand in 2016, but it's very important to try to get Amash to the Senate and get people into the Senate who are probably even more "pure" than Rand is.  I'd like for Rand to be seen as a moderate voice in the Senate someday.

----------


## specsaregood

> Who IS advocating that?


I certainly am and I'd appreciate it if you don't make light of my lifestyle choice -- don't knock it until you've tried it buddy.  With that said, I'm not a Libertarian either; I've found they are usually $#@!s and I won't knowingly let them on my resort.    Rand is just not advocating it because he doesn't want our retreat to get too crowded.

----------


## Brett85

> I certainly am and I'd appreciate it if you don't make light of my lifestyle choice -- don't knock it until you've tried it buddy.  With that said, I'm not a Libertarian either; I've found they are usually $#@!s and I won't knowingly let them on my resort.    Rand is just not advocating it because he doesn't want our retreat to get too crowded.


Welcome back.  I haven't seen you post here for a long time.

----------


## specsaregood

> Welcome back.  I haven't seen you post here for a long time.


thanks, I come back to read the news; but the level of FAKE outrage in this thread forced me say my piece.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> Is that a new term?  clever 
> 
> Look I don't know when the last time it was that you checked the demographics but more than half of Republican voters are some form of evangelical Christian.  You're not winning an election without them.  So Rand going on CBN and getting positive coverage is necessary.
> 
> Do you want to win 5% and snipe on the internet or do you want to effect real change in the country?  I want the latter.



Ron was within ~3,000 votes of winning Iowa. If Rand were to simply take ownership of Ron's positions he would not only extend his Dad's legacy & message rather than undermine them, but he would also be millimeters from the biggest breakthrough ever for the message of liberty. 

Instead he insults libertarians and panders to the people who's influence is waning. 4 more years of 15 years old becoming 19 year olds and 75 year olds passing on (morbid but true) and Ron Paul's heir could be the GOP frontrunner without a single concession to the bull$#@! of the GOP establishment. Sadly, Rand has gone the other direction. No thanks.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Ron was within ~3,000 votes of winning Iowa. If Rand were to simply take ownership of Ron's positions he would not only extend his Dad's legacy & message rather than undermine them, but he would also be millimeters from the biggest breakthrough ever for the message of liberty. 
> 
> Instead he insults libertarians and panders to the people who's influence is waning. 4 more years of 15 years old becoming 19 year olds and 75 year olds passing on (morbid but true) and Ron Paul's heir could be the GOP frontrunner without a single concession to the bull$#@! of the GOP establishment. Sadly, Rand has gone the other direction. No thanks.


How many 19 year old GOP Caucus voters are there in Iowa, really?  You're wrong if you think their influence will be greater than the 65+ crowd in 2016.

And, for the millionth time: Rand Paul has taken ownership of Ron Paul's positions.  Ron Paul himself has said Rand Paul and him agree 99% of the time.  Ron Paul will be campaigning for and endorsing Rand Paul for President.  Ron Paul knows whose ear he'll have the most in the White House.

----------


## Brett85

> And, for the millionth time: Rand Paul has taken ownership of Ron Paul's positions.


When has Ron ever said that he supports drug laws?  I mean I still like Rand and am going to support him in 2016, but it's just ridiculous to say that Rand is running on the same platform that Ron ran on.  He's watered down the message pretty significantly.

----------


## klamath

Makes me support Rand even more. I am F*ing glad he isn't calling himself a L. Wah wah waH he insulted us! Can't f*ing blame him the way they attack him. Ditch em.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> When has Ron ever said that he supports drug laws?


Ron Paul ran campaign ads in 1996 against drugs:




> _Democratic hopeful disputes GOP rival's true stand on drugs_
> 
> AUSTIN - Democrat congressional nominee Charles "Lefty" Morris on Friday charged Republican Ron Paul was misleading voters on his position on legalizing drugs.
> 
> In what is becoming an increasingly heated issue in the race for the 14th U.S. Congressional District, Morris called a Capitol news conference to dispute *Paul's latest ads in which the GOP candidate pledged to "get drugs out of town."*


You see: Ron Paul ran for President with the Libertarian Party in 1988, and needed to distance himself from them somewhat to help himself politically, when he was running for the U.S. House as a non-incumbent in 1996.  Sound familiar?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Ron was within ~3,000 votes of winning Iowa. If Rand were to simply take ownership of Ron's positions he would not only extend his Dad's legacy & message rather than undermine them, but he would also be millimeters from the biggest breakthrough ever for the message of liberty. 
> 
> Instead he insults libertarians and panders to the people who's influence is waning. 4 more years of 15 years old becoming 19 year olds and 75 year olds passing on (morbid but true) and Ron Paul's heir could be the GOP frontrunner without a single concession to the bull$#@! of the GOP establishment. Sadly, Rand has gone the other direction. No thanks.




Amen.

----------


## IDefendThePlatform

> How many 19 year old GOP Caucus voters are there in Iowa, really?  You're wrong if you think their influence will be greater than the 65+ crowd in 2016.
> 
> And, for the millionth time: Rand Paul has taken ownership of Ron Paul's positions.  Ron Paul himself has said Rand Paul and him agree 99% of the time.  Ron Paul will be campaigning for and endorsing Rand Paul for President.  Ron Paul knows whose ear he'll have the most in the White House.



You missed the point about the 19 year olds.  No one said they will have MORE influence than 65+. I said, correctly, that more of the old guard is dying off and more young voters from the next generation will be taking their places. This is an obvious advantage for the freedom message. 

And anyone who thinks Rand isn't watering down and undermining Ron's message is kidding themselves. Rand specifically tries to distance himself from Ron because he thinks he needs to help his own electability. My point was clearly that he doesn't need to do that and also that it hurts the message.

----------


## erowe1

> Is it too much to ask that someone on this forum who is close to the Senator's office ask him to clarify his statements and put his response on this board?  A simple apology voiced through a third party such as Mr. Collins that he personally is sending Rands assertion that his statement was just poorly worded and what he meant to say was "x...x".  That's all I want.  Some assertion that Rand is still listening to us.


Is this serious?

----------


## erowe1

> Makes me support Rand even more. I am F*ing glad he isn't calling himself a L. Wah wah waH he insulted us! Can't f*ing blame him the way they attack him. Ditch em.


+rep

----------


## phill4paul

> Is this serious?


  Why shouldn't it be?

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Why shouldn't it be?


For starters, a lot of people here don't take Collins very seriously.  How much sway would a Message From Matt have, really?

----------


## phill4paul

> Makes me support Rand even more. I am F*ing glad he isn't calling himself a L. Wah wah waH he insulted us! Can't f*ing blame him the way they attack him. Ditch em.


 Good. Your support remains at norm while my support slides to negative. Good job on his part. Dontcha think?

----------


## sailingaway

> Ron Paul ran campaign ads in 1996 against drugs:
> 
> 
> 
> You see: Ron Paul ran for President with the Libertarian Party in 1988, and needed to distance himself from them somewhat to help himself politically, when he was running for the U.S. House as a non-incumbent in 1996.  Sound familiar?


I know well how Rove spun the media against Ron in 1996 and would have to see actual quotes, not media characterization of what he said, but he didn't characterize people whose support he cultivates as hedonists.

----------


## phill4paul

> For starters, a lot of people here don't take Collins very seriously.  How much sway would a Message From Matt have, really?


Lol. +rep for that hilarious observation. I'm not sure that was who IC was thinking about. I could be wrong. But thank you for an honest gut bust. Lol.

----------


## adisongrace

It's obvious the paradigm has control of most minds
when it come to *party politics*.  What
difference does it make if the candidate is
liberal, conservative or even communist! 
if that person is the best choice for liberty
and will stand with the people we should
show them our support by voting for freedom.

However that isn't the case with Rand. L or his
new neo-con lite image still won't change the fact 
he has turned his back on liberty and took the 
lobbies from the elite. 

the system is bought and sold to the highest bidder.
Rand knows this. He took advantage of that
while he could.

In closing the system isn't going to change
without direct action and revolt.
on the grass root level.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> You missed the point about the 19 year olds.  No one said they will have MORE influence than 65+. I said, correctly, that more of the old guard is dying off and more young voters from the next generation will be taking their places. This is an obvious advantage for the freedom message. 
> 
> And anyone who thinks Rand isn't watering down and undermining Ron's message is kidding themselves. Rand specifically tries to distance himself from Ron because he thinks he needs to help his own electability. My point was clearly that he doesn't need to do that and also that it hurts the message.



Yeah Rand is trampeling all over Ron's message.

----------


## Brett85

> Makes me support Rand even more. I am F*ing glad he isn't calling himself a L. Wah wah waH he insulted us! Can't f*ing blame him the way they attack him. Ditch em.


So I guess you guys supported Ron even though you disagreed with his opposition to the war on drugs?

----------


## FrankRep

> So I guess you guys supported Ron even though you disagreed with his opposition to the war on drugs?


I bet you that everyone here, including myself, feels the "War on Drugs" is a failure. However, it's political suicide to run on a "legalize drugs" platform.

When you get a chance, look up "Political Strategy" because I don't think you understand what "strategy" means.

----------


## Brett85

> I bet you that everyone here, including myself, feels the "War on Drugs" is a failure. However, it's political suicide to run on a "legalize drugs" platform.
> 
> When you get a chance, look up "Political Strategy" because I don't think you understand what "strategy" means.


Like I said, taking a states' rights position isn't controversial, at least with marijuana.  The last poll I saw showed that 60% of Republicans think that the states should have the right to legalize marijuana.

----------


## FrankRep

> Like I said, taking a states' rights position isn't controversial, at least with marijuana.  The last poll I saw showed that 60% of Republicans think that the states should have the right to legalize marijuana.


Rand Paul's campaign political strategists will need to analyze the data and find out it that platform plank will help or hurt him.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

Yeah they ran on Reason that he was pandering to the Evangelicals saying he doesn't want to end the War on Drugs. Pathetic.

----------


## AlexAmore

> There shouldn't be an intended audience. Freedom knows no bounds or 
> audience. Freedom is freedom no matter how you spin it.


This is extremely wrong.

So why did Ron Paul lose 3 times then? The majority of people really don't care about freedom nor understand how it works. Liberals and Liberal Republicans certainly don't understand freedom. Safety and security is very important to many people, especially old people who feel very vulnerable thanks to age.

I've studied marketing for a decade now and I'm in the business currently. The first rule of marketing is know your audience. The second rule is provide the goods to suit the audience. You're putting it the other way around as MANY MANY businesses mistakenly do constantly. You see it all the time with amateur inventors on Shark Tank who come up with an awesome idea and it works amazingly well, but there isn't a large enough market to make it profitable. They should have researched the market first, THEN invested money into the product. Then they would have known to quit the project...OR alter it.

The way this applies to the liberty movement is this: 

First understand your intended audience on a given day. Then build bridges of agreement. We need them to understand we're on the same side, fighting for the same fundamental things. They want society to succeed and WE want society to succeed. So let's focus on that. 

Ok so our audience research is this: The drug war is about security and safety for these people. 

Our "product" is this: You will only change their minds on this once you've become one of them in their eyes. These security loving people need to know we have their interests at heart because they are OUR interests as well. Once we've gained their trust can we slowly and gradually change their perception. Anything less than that will be perceived as an "attack" on them.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I've studied marketing for a decade now and I'm in the business currently. The first rule of marketing is know your audience.


Want to know what the first rule of representation is? Never let some dolt with a .inc at the end of his name steal it from you and repatriate we the people like it's some kind of business venture. Took about two seconds to study that. Growth and survival are two entirely different phenomenon. 

And another thing. Ron only lost in your world. Ron won where it matteres. Continues winning too.

----------


## klamath

> So I guess you guys supported Ron even though you disagreed with his opposition to the war on drugs?


Oh I disagreed with Ron a lot but his opposition to his war on drugs wasn't one of them. Yes I supported him and Didn't hound him every time I disagreed with him.

----------


## Brett85

> Oh I disagreed with Ron a lot but his opposition to his war on drugs wasn't one of them. Yes I supported him and Didn't hound him every time I disagreed with him.


So you just don't view the war on drugs as being an important issue?  It's not an important issue for me in my own personal life, because I've never used any drug before and don't plan on ever using them.  I've never even smoked a cigarette before.  I have asthma, so smoking cigarettes or smoking marijuana wouldn't be a very good idea for me.  But, the drug war is important from a fiscal conservative perspective and a civil liberties perspective.  This isn't some minor issue.  I don't see why people are suprised that Rand is being criticized on this when this is such a fundamental issue in terms of policy.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> For starters, a lot of people here don't take Collins very seriously.  How much sway would a Message From Matt have, really?


Matt has his flaws when it comes to being a pompous know it all, but when it comes to having insider information on Rand's official campaign operations, he's been accurate.

----------


## Randslide

Again, need some sanity in this debate...

Rand's big play on drugs is doing away with mandatory minimums. Great, libertarian stance... Unfortunately, he's on an island among GOP in pushing it. 

Well, we should have his back. Instead, we are excoriating him for wanting marijuana legalization decided at the state level? Come on.

----------


## speciallyblend

I am getting tired of defending Rand Paul. I will let the gop establishment defend him!  Tired of the disease called the republican party. It is a proven gateway to tyranny and bigger intrusive gov.  Ron Paul 2016 or GJ 2016.

----------


## compromise

> I am getting tired of defending Rand Paul. I will let the gop establishment defend him!  Tired of the disease called the republican party. It is a proven gateway to tyranny and bigger intrusive gov.  Ron Paul 2016 or GJ 2016.


What makes GJ more libertarian than Rand Paul? GJ does not support the 10th amendment to the US Constitution.

----------


## Brett85

> Again, need some sanity in this debate...
> 
> Rand's big play on drugs is doing away with mandatory minimums. Great, libertarian stance... Unfortunately, he's on an island among GOP in pushing it. 
> 
> Well, we should have his back. Instead, we are excoriating him for wanting marijuana legalization decided at the state level? Come on.


He never made it clear whether he was talking about state drug laws or federal drug laws.  That's the main problem that I have with his position, not that he hasn't endorsed drug legalization at the state level.

----------


## speciallyblend

> What makes GJ more libertarian than Rand Paul? GJ does not support the 10th amendment to the US Constitution.


GJ will end the drug war and i call BS on your 10th amendment post, I have many reasons to support GJ over Est Rand and the corrupt gop. I am over defending Rand, end of story. you are more then welcome to move to my county,district,precinct and become a delegate. I will not,  http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Pro...nth_Amendment/

The gop is like a disease. It can kill you.

----------


## klamath

> So you just don't view the war on drugs as being an important issue?  It's not an important issue for me in my own personal life, because I've never used any drug before and don't plan on ever using them.  I've never even smoked a cigarette before.  I have asthma, so smoking cigarettes or smoking marijuana wouldn't be a very good idea for me.  But, the drug war is important from a fiscal conservative perspective and a civil liberties perspective.  This isn't some minor issue.  I don't see why people are suprised that Rand is being criticized on this when this is such a fundamental issue in terms of policy.


I am not surprised at all. It is the norm. Libertarians actually have made me less of a anti drug war person. Cops, manufacturers and growers like the drug war and the money it brings. Consumers (users) lock it in place. The best way to end the drug war is for users to boycott suppliers that are getting filthy rich with astronomical prices.

----------


## mad cow

> And another thing. Ron only lost in your world. Ron won where it matteres. Continues winning too.


Actually,Barrack Milhous Obama won,you could look it up.And the 18-29 age bracket voted for him by 60%, more than any other age bracket.Of course,when all of us oldsters who hate that worthless fascist  bastard die off,you youngsters can live your Libertarian dream cause y'all are so overwhelmingly Libertarian and all.

----------


## jct74

maybe this has been brought up earlier in this long ass thread but do we even know for sure that Rand that said "I'm not a libertarian" right after he said “I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot”?  This could very well be a case of sloppy reporting or intentionally trying to insert meaning in Rand's words from the Washington Post.




> “I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” he said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...d_story_1.html

Even if he did really say things in that order, maybe I should be outraged but meh... poor choice of words is a small blemish on his entire body of work.

----------


## supermario21

Gary Johnson DOES NOT support the 10th amendment. In his interview with Abby on RT she basically said "I would hate for certain states to allow bigotry" and Gary went right along with it talking about how gay marriage and abortion are federal rights.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

71 pages...lmao

----------


## compromise

> GJ will end the drug war and i call BS on your 10th amendment post, I have many reasons to support GJ over Est Rand and the corrupt gop. I am over defending Rand, end of story. you are more then welcome to move to my county,district,precinct and become a delegate. I will not,  http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Pro...nth_Amendment/
> 
> The gop is like a disease. It can kill you.





> Gary Johnson DOES NOT support the 10th amendment. In his interview with Abby on RT she basically said "I would hate for certain states to allow bigotry" and Gary went right along with it talking about how gay marriage and abortion are federal rights.


This. Gary Johnson currently supports federal gay marriage and abortion. He may be better than a lot of other politicians, but he's not even close to Rand.
That, and his lack of knowledge about the Austrian school of economics disqualifies him in my view from being a strong, pro-liberty presidential candidate.

----------


## Carlybee

> Rand Paul is talking to Conservatives and many Conservatives view Libertarians as pot-head hippies. Rand Paul doesn't support being a pot-head hippie.


Except for the fact that it's an incorrect and broad statement. Is he calling his dad a pothead hippie because he was for drug legalization?  It's assumptive and insulting to people who pumped a lot of money into his dad's run and who won't be so thrilled to do the same for Rand. But maybe he doesn't need funding.

----------


## klamath

> Except for the fact that it's an incorrect and broad statement. Is he calling his dad a pothead hippie because he was for drug legalization?  It's assumptive and insulting to people who pumped a lot of money into his dad's run and who won't be so thrilled to do the same for Rand. But maybe he doesn't need funding.


It is insulting to a lot of us that RP lied to us about his intentions for running and we paid freaking millions on "He's catching on I'm telling ya"

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I am getting tired of defending Rand Paul. I will let the gop establishment defend him!  Tired of the disease called the republican party. It is a proven gateway to tyranny and bigger intrusive gov.  Ron Paul 2016 or GJ 2016.


The establishment doesn't like Rand.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Except for the fact that it's an incorrect and broad statement. Is he calling his dad a pothead hippie because he was for drug legalization?  It's assumptive and insulting to people who pumped a lot of money into his dad's run and who won't be so thrilled to do the same for Rand. But maybe he doesn't need funding.




Ron was also a libertarian Republican; a constitutional conservative.  He wasn't calling his father a damn thing.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Except for the fact that it's an incorrect and broad statement. Is he calling his dad a pothead hippie because he was for drug legalization?  It's assumptive and insulting to people who pumped a lot of money into his dad's run and who won't be so thrilled to do the same for Rand. But maybe he doesn't need funding.


Rand won't be getting a dime from me.  But it's not likely he would need it.  I'm sure he'll get all the funding he needs from the usual GOP corporate donors.

----------


## erowe1

> Except for the fact that it's an incorrect and broad statement.


It's not an incorrect and broad statement. Assuming Rand's telling the truth, and he's not a pothead nudist, it's a true statement.




> Is he calling his dad a pothead hippie because he was for drug legalization?


Of course he's not.

That right there should be enough to calm people down.

----------


## mad cow

> Rand won't be getting a dime from me.


Shucks.Just yesterday I was sure you were maxing out.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Rand won't be getting a dime from me.  But it's not likely he would need it.  I'm sure he'll get all the funding he needs from the usual GOP corporate donors.


I hope he does and quite frankly I'm not that concerned that a certain portion of the Ron faithful plan on sitting this one out as the real doers in the movement are use to picking up the slack of others. That said, I hope these sitters ARE donating to Ron's organizations on a regular basis and being active on the issues: C4L and RPI. If not, stop comparing Rand to Ron cause you're useless and this is meant as a general statement to all those who take umbrage to my line of insinuation.

----------


## Carlybee

Haha....you Rand people get butthurt much easier than the libertarians. Omg...don't dare call Rand out. Words have consequences....the consequences are that generally one is judged by those words. Now let me go light one up while running naked through the woods. Oh wait...I have a job. Maybe next week.

----------


## Thor

I have not read all these threads, so this has probably been said, but...  

Rand is just casting a wider net.  Which if we stand a chance of turning this sinking ship around, we need a wider support base.  So I am fine with it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I have not read all these threads, so this has probably been said, but...  
> 
> Rand is just casting a wider net.  Which if we stand a chance of turning this sinking ship around, we need a wider support base.  So I am fine with it.


Casting a wider net doesn't usually include insulting people who might have already been *IN* the net.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Haha....you Rand people get butthurt much easier than the libertarians. Omg...don't dare call Rand out. Words have consequences....the consequences are that generally one is judged by those words. *Now let me go light one up while running naked through the woods. Oh wait...I have a job.* Maybe next week.


That's the kind of libertarian that I think he's trying to promote to encourage conservatives to come our way. BTW, tons of libertarians and even some political ancaps support Rand and his crusade.

----------


## Brett85

> I have not read all these threads, so this has probably been said, but...  
> 
> Rand is just casting a wider net.  Which if we stand a chance of turning this sinking ship around, we need a wider support base.  So I am fine with it.


If Rand is bringing more people in by taking anti liberty positions, what exactly is the point of that?  The liberty movement is supposed to be about ideas, not a person.

----------


## erowe1

> If Rand is bringing more people in by taking anti liberty positions, what exactly is the point of that?  The liberty movement is supposed to be about ideas, not a person.


I don't think he is.

You're being far too logical here, TC. There are definitely policy things of Rand's to criticize. But that's not what this thread is about. If you try to say something that actually makes sense, you'll get completely drowned out by the hysteria of the symbolism over substance crowd.

----------


## Thor

> Casting a wider net doesn't usually include insulting people who might have already been *IN* the net.





> If Rand is bringing more people in by taking anti liberty positions, what exactly is the point of that?  The liberty movement is supposed to be about ideas, not a person.


Bring them in, soft sell the ideas and make the conversion.  Ron was the bellwether, Rand will win it and bring it home.  He needs to do what needs to be done to give Liberty a fighting chance.  We can stick to ideals and proclaim ourselves right while we sink into a horrid police state, or we can win over enough people to enact change and shift direction of the road to hell we are on.

I would rather have a fighting chance at changing direction on that road, than be self-righteous and pure in my beliefs and alienate anyone who might be a fence sitter.

I met a guy a few months ago who had a Romney sticker still on his truck and we got to talking (for other reasons) and it lead to the economy, government, etc.  And I asked him how how he could support Romney...  He said "not perfect, but better than Obama" and I told him I did not care for Romney, too much of a flip flopper.  He agreed with that.  Then I told him I liked Ron Paul.  He said he did not agree with Ron Paul on some things, but "I like Rand Paul."  So, a quasi-neocon, following the GOP mantra person likes Rand!  That is a win.  That is what Rand is doing.  He is casting a wider net.  And I don't give a rats ass about people being butt hurt if it means ultimate victory and saving this $#@! hole.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Bring them in, soft sell the ideas and make the conversion.


No one is going to be "making the conversion" when he's pandering to them, making him think he's one of them.  He's allowing these people to define  him.  

I don't care, he can run his campaign the way he wants....but don't tell me he's doing these things to make a conversion.  There is nothing that he's saying to these people to pull them away from where they are; he's allowing himself to be pulled their way.

----------


## Brett85

> I met a guy a few months ago who had a Romney sticker still on his truck and we got to talking (for other reasons) and it lead to the economy, government, etc.  And I asked him how how he could support Romney...  He said "not perfect, but better than Obama" and I told him I did not care for Romney, too much of a flip flopper.  He agreed with that.  Then I told him I liked Ron Paul.  He said he did not agree with Ron Paul on some things, but "I like Rand Paul."  So, a quasi-neocon, following the GOP mantra person likes Rand!  That is a win.  That is what Rand is doing.  He is casting a wider net.  And I don't give a rats ass about people being butt hurt if it means ultimate victory and saving this $#@! hole.


My concern is that Rand is becoming too much like Romney.  He'll say different things to different people, depending on who his audience is.  He's going to run the risk of being labeled as a "flip flopper."  I don't think for a second that Rand supports the war on drugs.  He made too many anti drug war statements before he ever ran for the Senate for anyone to really think that he supports the drug war.  But, I still don't like this idea of lying in order to get more political support.  The American people are sick and tired of those kind of politicians.

----------


## Carlybee

> That's the kind of libertarian that I think he's trying to promote to encourage conservatives to come our way. BTW, tons of libertarians and even some political ancaps support Rand and his crusade.


Yep...I'm aware. If he keeps distancing himself from liberty principles we'll see how that works out for him.

----------


## erowe1

> My concern is that Rand is becoming too much like Romney.  He'll say different things to different people, depending on who his audience is.  He's going to run the risk of being labeled as a "flip flopper."  I don't think for a second that Rand supports the war on drugs.  He made too many anti drug war statements before he ever ran for the Senate for anyone to really think that he supports the drug war.  But, I still don't like this idea of lying in order to get more political support.  The American people are sick and tired of those kind of politicians.


Has he flip-flopped though?

I think his drug policy has been pretty consistent. He's less of a drug warrior than Obama, or anyone else in the Senate, or any governors from either party. But more of one than his dad. That's where he's been since his senate run, and where he still his. Sometimes he makes one point about it, sometimes another. But I don't see any flip-flopping. His approach is incrementalism in the right direction. That's what it's always been.

----------


## JCDenton0451

Question for social-conservatives: does any of you seriously think Rand is going introduce some sort of new restrictions on abortion if elected President?

----------


## erowe1

> Question for social-conservatives: does any of you seriously think Rand is going introduce some sort of new restrictions on abortion if elected President?


No. I think he will try to get the federal government out of it so that states can restrict it.

----------


## Brett85

> Has he flip-flopped though?
> 
> I think his drug policy has been pretty consistent. He's less of a drug warrior than Obama, or anyone else in the Senate, or any governors from either party. But more of one than his dad. That's where he's been since his senate run, and where he still his. Sometimes he makes one point about it, sometimes another. But I don't see any flip-flopping. His approach is incrementalism in the right direction. That's what it's always been.


Well, he'll use completely different rhetoric depending on who his audience is.  He'll give a speech to Howard University where he'll say, "I'll do everything possible to keep non violent people out of prison," and then he'll tell social conservatives in Iowa that "he's opposed to legalizing all drugs, even marijuana."  While that may not technically a flip flop, it sure seems to be an example of sending different signals to different audiences.

----------


## Brett85

> Question for social-conservatives: does any of you seriously think Rand is going introduce some sort of new restrictions on abortion if elected President?


I don't know.  I hope that he would actually be pro life and pro liberty, which means that he would work to end abortion and work to end the drug war.

----------


## FrankRep

> I don't know.  I hope that he would actually be pro life and pro liberty, which means that he would work to end abortion and work to end the drug war.


It's hard to fix anything if you don't get elected.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, he'll use completely different rhetoric depending on who his audience is.  He'll give a speech to Howard University where he'll say, "I'll do everything possible to keep non violent people out of prison," and then he'll tell social conservatives in Iowa that "he's opposed to legalizing all drugs, even marijuana."  While that may not technically a flip flop, it sure seems to be an example of sending different signals to different audiences.


I think it's emphasizing different things to different people, which he ought to do, and which his dad did as well all the time.

But if it's not a flip-flop, then I don't see the problem.

If someone wants to say they won't support Rand because they can only support someone who's even more against the drug war than he is, then I can understand that. But they should reject him for what he is, and not a caricature based on something they took out of context. Expecting him to say the same thing to every audience is asking way too much.

----------


## Brett85

> I think it's emphasizing different things to different people, which he ought to do, and which his dad did as well all the time.
> 
> But if it's not a flip-flop, then I don't see the problem.
> 
> If someone wants to say they won't support Rand because they can only support someone who's even more against the drug war than he is, then I can understand that. But they should reject him for what he is, and not a caricature based on something they took out of context. Expecting him to say the same thing to every audience is asking way too much.


Well, he hasn't flip flopped on the issue since he's been on the political scene.  Since he ran for the U.S Senate in 2010, he's always said that he's opposed to marijuana legalization.  But, it seems to be a flip flop from statements he made before he ever ran for office.  Back when he was just a regular citizen, he made a comment on a local talk show, saying that "things that are non violent shouldn't be against the law."  Keep in mind that he didn't say that "non violent people shouldn't get thrown in prison," he said that non violent activities "shouldn't be against the law," meaning that there should be no penalty for non violent activities at all.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, he hasn't flip flopped on the issue since he's been on the political scene.  Since he ran for the U.S Senate in 2010, he's always said that he's opposed to marijuana legalization.  But, it seems to be a flip flop from statements he made before he ever ran for office.  Back when he was just a regular citizen, he made a comment on a local talk show, saying that "things that are non violent shouldn't be against the law."  Keep in mind that he didn't say that "non violent people shouldn't get thrown in prison," he said that non violent activities "shouldn't be against the law," meaning that there should be no penalty for non violent activities at all.


I think that's different.

The platform a politician runs on has to be taken for what it is in the context of them running for office. He might have changed his mind since that interview, but I doubt it, and even if he hasn't it's not a flip-flop. One is an idealistic opinion, the other one is a policy position that is informed by a combination of that idealistic opinion and other concerns. If I ran for office, and someone pulled extreme quotes from this forum, I'd have no trouble making clear that those don't reflect the positions I'm running on.

ETA: Note that the policies Rand has held since running for Senate point in the direction of the opinion he expressed back then when starting from the status quo.

----------


## Brett85

> It's hard to fix anything if you don't get elected.


I think that taking authoritarian positions on issues like this will make it harder for Rand to win a general election.  Even if he wins the GOP nomination, he'll have a tough time winning over independents and Democrats the way that Ron did.  Rand is going to have the exact opposite problem that Ron had.  Ron would've been able to win a general election by winning over independents and Democrats, but he could never get to the general election since he couldn't win over Republicans.  Rand might be able to win over Republicans and win the GOP primary, but he's going to have a harder time winning over independents and Democrats if he just comes across like a typical Republican.

----------


## July

> I think that's different.
> 
> The platform a politician runs on has to be taken for what it is in the context of them running for office. He might have changed his mind since that interview, but I doubt it, and even if he hasn't it's not a flip-flop. One is an idealistic opinion, the other one is a policy position that is informed by a combination of that idealistic opinion and other concerns. If I ran for office, and someone pulled extreme quotes from this forum, I'd have no trouble making clear that those don't reflect the positions I'm running on.
> 
> ETA: Note that the policies Rand has held since running for Senate point in the direction of the opinion he expressed back that when starting from the status quo.


Indeed. Reminds of one of the other comments Rand made, something about how politics is the art of fusion, and looking for a common theme to build on, or something to that effect. He isn't running on an LP ticket and he isn't just representing libertarians. I think that's the point. If he is going to be a party leader, then he has to find a way to listen and work with the other factions and find common theme to unite them all behind a common platform. There will probably be a handful of common issues, but no group will agree 100% on all issues.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know.  I hope that he would actually be pro life and pro liberty, which means that he would work to end abortion and work to end the drug war.


As radically pro-life as I am (And you know I'm pro-life based on my comments to you in the past) I don't see how, beyond perhaps the occasional pardon of an anti-abortion vigilante, Federal regulation of abortion is constitutional at all.  




> Question for social-conservatives: does any of you seriously think Rand is going introduce some sort of new restrictions on abortion if elected President?


Maybe something that's mostly useless like the PBA ban (Which, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if that really is a "But then you can kill the baby" type of law than anything that actually reduces abortion.)  I'm not really a social conservative in general, but I'm strongly pro-life.  All that said, I mostly take the Republican claims that they are pro-life as being bull.  Even still, I'd have a rough time voting for someone who supported Roe v Wade... I probably would if it was a choice between two pro-choice candidates and one of them had basically a Ron Paul level record on everything else, but that would be REALLY hard.




> No. I think he will try to get the federal government out of it so that states can restrict it.


I hope he will, but the bottom line is, he's got to be willing to gives SCOTUS the middle finger.  I question whether he'll do that.



> I hope he does and quite frankly I'm not that concerned that a certain portion of the Ron faithful plan on sitting this one out as the real doers in the movement are use to picking up the slack of others. That said, I hope these sitters ARE donating to Ron's organizations on a regular basis and being active on the issues: C4L and RPI. If not, stop comparing Rand to Ron cause you're useless and this is meant as a general statement to all those who take umbrage to my line of insinuation.


Well, I do have to get out of high school first, but I do talk to people about libertarianism in general on a fairly regular basis.  I do intend to vote for Rand Paul, but I don't think that's how we're going to fix this nonsense.  Ultimately, I think education and local politics is better than national politics at this stage of the game, but that doesn't mean I won't give my vote to a good candidate at the national level.



> Gary Johnson DOES NOT support the 10th amendment. In his interview with Abby on RT she basically said "I would hate for certain states to allow bigotry" and Gary went right along with it talking about how gay marriage and abortion are federal rights.


Does he think abortion is a Federal issue now?  If that's the case, I'd switch my "Preferred" candidate for 2012 to Virgil Goode...  I did hint above that I might vote for an otherwise excellent candidate who got this one wrong under certain conditions, but Johnson was far from "Great."  His stupid Federal support of SSM was bad enough...

Gary is really starting to disappoint me.  There was a time when I liked Gary better than Rand, but those days are gone...




> This. Gary Johnson currently supports federal gay marriage and abortion. He may be better than a lot of other politicians, but he's not even close to Rand.
> That, and *his lack of knowledge about the Austrian school of economics disqualifies him in my view from being a strong, pro-liberty presidential candidate*.


How difficult is it to actually learn this kind of stuff?  Is it as intensely mathematical as other economics systems?  I'll admit that while my intuition tells me that virtually no regulation (By "Virtually" I basically mean "Punish fraud and extortion but otherwise leave it alone) is a good idea and that fractional reserve banking is at least uncomfortably close to fraud (I MIGHT be willing to accept it if participants signed a waiver saying that they understand what the banks are doing and that nobody will bail them out, I'm willing to be convinced one way or another on that) I'm not really all that knowledgeable about economics in general, and that includes the Austrian School.




> So you just don't view the war on drugs as being an important issue?  It's not an important issue for me in my own personal life, because I've never used any drug before and don't plan on ever using them.  I've never even smoked a cigarette before.  I have asthma, so smoking cigarettes or smoking marijuana wouldn't be a very good idea for me.  But, the drug war is important from a fiscal conservative perspective and a civil liberties perspective.  This isn't some minor issue.  I don't see why people are suprised that Rand is being criticized on this when this is such a fundamental issue in terms of policy.


This.  Its huge.




> Yeah Rand is trampeling all over Ron's message.


He's not trampling on it, but he's presenting a watered down version that's better for Republicans but worse than us.



> That's for sure.


It is, but he's a lot closer than anyone else in the senate.



> Yeah, that's certainly true.  He doesn't seem to care much about what we think of him.


He doesn't, which makes me unhappy.



> I think this really just shows that our focus needs to be on electing members of Congress who will consistently advocate principles of liberty.  I'll still support Rand in 2016, but it's very important to try to get Amash to the Senate and get people into the Senate who are probably even more "pure" than Rand is.  I'd like for Rand to be seen as a moderate voice in the Senate someday.


I hope so.

----------


## erowe1

> As radically pro-life as I am (And you know I'm pro-life based on my comments to you in the past) I don't see how, beyond perhaps the occasional pardon of an anti-abortion vigilante, Federal regulation of abortion is constitutional at all.


I do from the 14th Amendment.

Granted, I'd like to get rid of that amendment.

----------


## Krzysztof Lesiak

$#@!ing goddamnit. He has to stop this BS. He is alienating his entire base!!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I do from the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Granted, I'd like to get rid of that amendment.


I'm honestly not sure what the problem with birthright citizenship is, even though I know Ron Paul doesn't like it.  Honestly, I'm thankfful to God that I have my citizenship right now without having to swear that naturalization oath.  I'm not technically a pacifist, but I can't really promise to serve in the armed forces "When required by the law" either...

All that said, I do understand that the 14th amendment is probably not valid simply because the Southern states signed at the point of a gun. I don't really think the states should be able to violate people's rights entirely without consequence, but I don't support making war against them either.  I don't like the whole "Withholding funds" thing in theory right now since the states literally have no choice  but to pay, but if secession was an option, I'd be fine with withholding funds from states that violate the rights of their people.  I'd also be fine with outright expelling states that do anything serious against human rights.  I think standing by and doing nothing while abortion is committed would be a pretty extreme rights violation worthy of expulsion, if we ever got to that point.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> $#@!ing goddamnit. He has to stop this BS. He is alienating his entire base!!


The plan is to get a new base.

----------


## FrankRep

> $#@!ing goddamnit. He has to stop this BS. He is alienating his entire base!!


Rand Paul's base are Conservative Republican Constitutionalists.

----------


## erowe1

> The plan is to get a new base.


No it's not.

Most of Ron's supporters are going to stick with Rand. Most of the ones that won't were never "the base."

----------


## Thor

> $#@!ing goddamnit. He has to stop this BS. He is alienating his entire base!!



So, if the choices comes down to: 
Rand Paul (R)Hitlery Clinton (D)Gary Johnson (L)
You meant to tell me you are voting Johnson to give him 1.000001% and to stick to your principles?  Go for it.  That "base" is negligible.  And "margin of error" does not win an election.  Masses of people voting for the same person wins an election.  Rand is gathering the "mass"  and I thank him for that.  If he burns us after getting elected, then we are $#@!ed.  But this is the only path to success we have at the moment.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So, if the choices comes down to: 
> Rand Paul (R)Hitlery Clinton (D)Gary Johnson (L)
> You meant to tell me you are voting Johnson to give him 1.000001% and to stick to your principles?  Go for it.  That "base" is negligible.  And "margin of error" does not win an election.  Masses of people voting for the same person wins an election.  Rand is gathering the "mass"  and I thank him for that.  If he burns us after getting elected, then we are $#@!ed.  But this is the only path to success we have at the moment.


Shocking that some people believe so strongly in their principles that they won't just swallow anything that's put in front of them, isn't it? 

I'm done with selecting the lesser between two evils.  Since my state doesn't allow write-ins (and it's already a foregone conclusion that the GOP candidate will win no matter who it is) I will just stay home if I don't like any of the choices.

----------


## Thor

> Shocking that some people believe so strongly in their principles that they won't just swallow anything that's put in front of them, isn't it? 
> 
> I'm done with selecting the lesser between two evils.  Since my state doesn't allow write-ins (and it's already a foregone conclusion that the GOP candidate will win no matter who it is) I will just stay home if I don't like any of the choices.


I don't view Rand as the lesser of 2 evils.  I see it as winning.  But if you do, so be it.  If you think that you are going to convert 50% of America to libertarianism (small L) in the next 4 year while there is still a chance to turn course of action our country is going down, you are mistaken.

This is the only way to make a difference.  Why do you think Ron ran R and not as an L?  Rand is just taking it up to the next level and open a bigger tent, to win and institute changes that we want.

If he sells out, then there is no hope.  Because "principles" isn't winning in 2016, or any time soon.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So, if the choices comes down to: 
> Rand Paul (R)Hitlery Clinton (D)Gary Johnson (L)
> You meant to tell me you are voting Johnson to give him 1.000001% and to stick to your principles?  Go for it.  That "base" is negligible.  And "margin of error" does not win an election.  Masses of people voting for the same person wins an election.  Rand is gathering the "mass"  and I thank him for that.  If he burns us after getting elected, then we are $#@!ed.  But this is the only path to success we have at the moment.


I don't think Cajun would vote for Johnson either.  There was a time when I preferred Gary over Rand but that day is definitely passed us with Johnson's recent interviews and Rand's excellent work in the senate.




> Shocking that some people believe so strongly in their principles that they won't just swallow anything that's put in front of them, isn't it? 
> 
> I'm done with selecting the lesser between two evils.  Since my state doesn't allow write-ins (and it's already a foregone conclusion that the GOP candidate will win no matter who it is) I will just stay home if I don't like any of the choices.


Is Rand Paul really an evil though?  I don't see how he would make anything any worse, and he could make some things a lot better.

----------


## jct74

> maybe this has been brought up earlier in this long ass thread but do we even know for sure that Rand that said "I'm not a libertarian" right after he said Im not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot?  This could very well be a case of sloppy reporting or intentionally trying to insert meaning in Rand's words from the Washington Post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Im not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot, he said. Im not a libertarian. Im a libertarian Republican. Im a constitutional conservative.
> 			
> ...


bump.

do we even know he associated libertarians with running around naked and smoking pot?  Or did Washington Post just string two separate sentences together?

----------


## Warlord

I'm not advocating that either and no one is! 

Rand is parsing his words and cajun and others are freaking out as usual.

----------


## Rudeman

Not sure what the outrage is, Rand isn't a libertarian, never claimed to be one. 


Or are people upset he doesn't advocate that people run around naked while smoking pot?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't view Rand as the lesser of 2 evils.  I see it as winning.  But if you do, so be it.  If you think that you are going to convert 50% of America to libertarianism (small L) in the next 4 year while there is still a chance to turn course of action our country is going down, you are mistaken.
> 
> This is the only way to make a difference.  Why do you think Ron ran R and not as an L?  Rand is just taking it up to the next level and open a bigger tent, to win and institute changes that we want.
> 
> If he sells out, then there is no hope.  Because "principles" isn't winning in 2016, or any time soon.





> I don't think Cajun would vote for Johnson either.  There was a time when I preferred Gary over Rand but that day is definitely passed us with Johnson's recent interviews and Rand's excellent work in the senate.
> 
> 
> 
> Is Rand Paul really an evil though?  I don't see how he would make anything any worse, and he could make some things a lot better.


No, I'm not saying that Rand is evil; just using an expression that means having to choose something that isn't what you really want.

@FreedomFanatic...I don't really like Gary Johnson, but I decided to give him my vote last November in order to grow the LP.  Dems and Repubs have had a monopoly on the system for too long.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Rand is parsing his words and cajun and others are freaking out as usual.


Cajuncocoa and crew have filled this thread with some of the most fake, contrived faux-outrage-for-political-purposes one will ever see.

----------


## FrankRep

> No, I'm not saying that Rand is evil; just using an expression that means having to choose something that isn't what you really want.


I want Rand Paul.

----------


## erowe1

> Not sure what the outrage is, Rand isn't a libertarian, never claimed to be one. 
> 
> 
> Or are people upset he doesn't advocate that people run around naked while smoking pot?


It all depends.

If you just proved how stupid it is to be upset for reason #1, then for the next 10 seconds, it will be reason #2 that matters.

If you just proved how stupid it is to be upset for reason #2, then for the next 10 seconds, it will be reason #1 that matters.

----------


## Rudeman

For me it goes Ron Paul> Rand Paul >>>>>> Gary Johnson

And I voted for Gary Johnson, so Rand Paul is a lock for my vote.

----------


## supermario21

This is an outrageous thread. It all depends on what issues you view most important and what frame of reference you use. Heck, Reason kept telling us how Gary Johnson was a much better libertarian than Ron. I don't even see Gary anywhere near as good as Rand.

----------


## erowe1

> This is an outrageous thread. It all depends on what issues you view most important and what frame of reference you use. Heck, Reason kept telling us how Gary Johnson was a much better libertarian than Ron. I don't even see Gary anywhere near as good as Rand.


For Reason, the biggest problem with Rand doing this is the fact that he is trying to get any evangelical support at all. From some of the comments in this thread, it looks like that's where a lot of the most zealous detractors are too. Notice references to them as "those people," etc.

----------


## supermario21

> For Reason, the biggest problem with Rand doing this is the fact that he is trying to get any evangelical support at all. From some of the comments in this thread, it looks like that's where a lot of the most zealous detractors are too. Notice references to them as "those people," etc.



That's what I can't stand about Reason and even Gary Johnson. They live in their own little bubble and would be happier if the LP continued to plod along with <1% of the vote as long as it remained a club of only people they approved of. I'm sure many of us Paulites here started out as neocons or at least more conventional conservative Republicans. He sold a message to us that no other libertarian type had been able to do. Gary and Reason continue to bash religion and social conservatism and make it like you can't support religion or conservative principles AND liberty. Ron was able to do that. So I sympathize with what Rand is doing. Ron did it without sacrificing the message, and I hope Rand's spreading of the message will not bastardize our core principles. I'm a bit disappointed on drugs but other than that I'm totally fine with what he's doing.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Cajuncocoa and crew have filled this thread with some of the most fake, contrived faux-outrage-for-political- principled purposes one will ever see.


FIFY

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> FIFY


If you're truly outraged, which I don't believe for two seconds, then you're way too hypersensitive.

----------


## Spikender

To be fair, I too have a problem with Rand for saying this, but I'm not going all out and saying this is what makes me dislike him

There are plenty of other things he's done to tick me off, but he's still got my support. Let's just not become blind to mistakes he makes. That's all I'm asking for.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> To be fair, I too have a problem with Rand for saying this, but I'm not going all out and saying this is what makes me dislike him
> 
> There are plenty of other things he's done to tick me off, but he's still got my support. Let's just not become blind to mistakes he makes. That's all I'm asking for.


You know, this is where I intended to be, but I'm really turned off by the way Rand's supporters defend every gaffe and every troublesome comment.* After while those things add up and start to mean something.

*I realize I come off as the bad guy to Rand's supporters, but I consider it their own fault because I have to keep explaining over and over to several of his defenders why the gaffe-of-the-week is problematic.

----------


## Spikender

> You know, this is where I intended to be, but I'm really turned off by the way Rand's supporters defend every gaffe and every troublesome comment. After while those things add up and start to mean something.


I agree, but I think there's issues on both sides, from people jumping up at every little thing, to people who blindly argue in Rand's defense no matter what he does.

I understand that it feels better to just go against Rand's more ardent supporters, but I'm going to stay at my middle ground until Rand does something that either truly shows his true colors, or without a doubt solidifies him as a generally good politician in my mind.

Until then, he'll have my support, and I will be there to cheer on his good moves and question the moves that don't seem so smart.

----------


## jct74

> maybe this has been brought up earlier in this long ass thread but do we even know for sure that Rand that said "I'm not a libertarian" right after he said “I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot”?  This could very well be a case of sloppy reporting or intentionally trying to insert meaning in Rand's words from the Washington Post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” he said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”
> 			
> ...


*Infowars: Rand Paul: Libertarians Advocate “Everyone Go Out… Run Around with No Clothes On and Smoke Pot”* 
http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-li...and-smoke-pot/

where did Rand Paul for sure associate libertarians with smoking pot and being naked?  can anyone provide the full continuous quote before flipping out, or did Washington Post string together two separate sentences and then Infowars "journalists" follow up with a hit piece based on something he didn't even say.  *are any of the people freaking out able to provide the full continuous quote?*

someone on Daily Paul agrees with me BTW
http://www.dailypaul.com/285658/rand...d-not-say-that

----------


## erowe1

> *Infowars: Rand Paul: Libertarians Advocate Everyone Go Out Run Around with No Clothes On and Smoke Pot* 
> http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-li...and-smoke-pot/
> 
> where did Rand Paul for sure associate libertarians with smoking pot and being naked?  can anyone provide the full unabridged quote before flipping out, or did Washington Post string together two separate sentences and then Infowars "journalists" put out a hit piece based on something he didn't even say.  *are any of the people freaking out able to provide the full continuous quote?*
> 
> someone on Daily Paul agrees with me BTW
> http://www.dailypaul.com/285658/rand...d-not-say-that


I think that's a great question. Or at least I would if I thought there was even the slightest bit of justification for anyone being upset about what he said.

Notice that even the way WaPo put it, it was two different sentences.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Rand Paul might be the most cunning political strategist ever, getting himself distance from both Kokesh and Infowars simultaneously.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *Infowars: Rand Paul: Libertarians Advocate “Everyone Go Out… Run Around with No Clothes On and Smoke Pot”* 
> http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-li...and-smoke-pot/
> 
> where did Rand Paul for sure associate libertarians with smoking pot and being naked?  can anyone provide the full unabridged quote before flipping out, or did Washington Post string together two separate sentences and then Infowars "journalists" put out a hit piece based on something he didn't even say.  *are any of the people freaking out able to provide the full continuous quote?*
> 
> someone on Daily Paul agrees with me BTW
> http://www.dailypaul.com/285658/rand...d-not-say-that


1. I'm not freaking out; I'm involved in a discussion with apologists as to why this alleged quote by Rand is insulting, if indeed he did say it.
2. I cannot verify that it was said exactly that way other than to say that it's been quoted that way all over the Internet by now, and there's been no retraction or correction.
3. Rand tends to say many things that can be taken negatively (the drone comment comes to mind).

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Not sure what the outrage is, Rand isn't a libertarian, never claimed to be one. 
> 
> 
> Or are people upset he doesn't advocate that people run around naked while smoking pot?


How would you feel when everytime you defended the first amendment for instance, everyone chastised you for wanting everyone to run around screaming profanities, sexually erotic comments, and all sorts of other misogynistic and racist remarks? Oh you're just a racist, misogynistic, pedaphile when you defend the first amendment! That's the same tortured and twisted logic people apply whenever you say you want to legalize prostitution, substances (aka drugs), or other activities that puritans don't like to have to admit exists and people have a right to engage in. So, yeah, your 'heaven on Earth' is HELL.

----------


## Thor

> Rand Paul might be the most cunning political strategist ever, getting himself distance from both Kokesh and Infowars simultaneously.


And for a big tent, possibly win the POTUS strategy, a good one too....  I think he has good roots, so I am not worried.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You know, this is where I intended to be, but I'm really turned off by the way Rand's supporters defend every gaffe and every troublesome comment.* After while those things add up and start to mean something.
> 
> *I realize I come off as the bad guy to Rand's supporters, but I consider it their own fault because I have to keep explaining over and over to several of his defenders why the gaffe-of-the-week is problematic.


I'm a Rand-Supporter.  For the moment, I hope you'll still give him your vote at least.   I don't really like his strategy, but when I see someone say "I don't like Ron but I like Rand" I kind of cross my fingers and hope for the best.  I'm not a Randroid type of Rand supporter, but unless he gets worse, I'll still support him.

I can't bank on the whole "Secret Agent" strategy, I can only go by what he says, but for now, what he's saying is good enough that, even if its not perfect, he is someone I could vote for.

Rand Paul hasn't outright rejected the constitution yet, and he is passing my three litmus tests so far (Anti-War, Pro-Gun, and anti-Federal Reserve), he's not absolutely perfect on those issues, but he is passing them.  Until he either really fails on one of those, or fails in a LOT of smaller areas put together, I'll still cast my vote for him.






> No, I'm not saying that Rand is evil; just using an expression that means having to choose something that isn't what you really want.
> 
> @FreedomFanatic...I don't really like Gary Johnson, but I decided to give him my vote last November in order to grow the LP.  Dems and Repubs have had a monopoly on the system for too long.


I would have voted for Gary Johnson at the time (But I wasn't allowed to, being 17), but if what someone mentioned about him supporting Roe v Wade is true I'd probably prefer Virgil Goode over him.  Gary was already shaky on foreign policy and the FED anyway, he was solid on guns but seemed much more concerned with gay marriage.  I'm honestly starting to think I'd probably prefer Goode.  

And I am a libertarian, not a constitutionalist.  But Virgil Goode is decent at being a constitutionalist, the more I listen to Gary the more he really sucks at being a libertarian OR a constitutionalist.  




> For me it goes Ron Paul> Rand Paul >>>>>> Gary Johnson
> 
> And I voted for Gary Johnson, so Rand Paul is a lock for my vote.


For me its more like Ron Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rand Paul >>>>>>> Gary Johnson.

Rand is closer to Gary than he is to Ron.... but then, who isn't?




> This is an outrageous thread. It all depends on what issues you view most important and what frame of reference you use. Heck, Reason kept telling us how Gary Johnson was a much better libertarian than Ron. I don't even see Gary anywhere near as good as Rand.


I think Rand is probably a better libertarian than Gary these days, but that really isn't saying much.  I always viewed Gary as more of a libertarian leaning liberal than a real libertarian.  Rand is a libertarian leaning conservative.  Neither of them is really a libertarian even by a leinient definition.

(To me "Libertarian by a leinient definition" would be basically somebody who supports government for not only police, courts, and defense, but also public services and maybe a couple other random non-libertarian positions)



> For Reason, the biggest problem with Rand doing this is the fact that he is trying to get any evangelical support at all. From some of the comments in this thread, it looks like that's where a lot of the most zealous detractors are too. Notice references to them as "those people," etc.


This is seriously annoying me.  I'm an Evangelical, and while I'm not sure, I'm guessing TradCon is too.  Both of us support legalization of all drugs.  I'm sure we aren't the only two around here either....


These people are "Warvengelical neocons."  These people need to be converted.  I used to be one.  Thanks to Ron Paul, I'm not one anymore.




> That's what I can't stand about Reason and even Gary Johnson. They live in their own little bubble and would be happier if the LP continued to plod along with <1% of the vote as long as it remained a club of only people they approved of. I'm sure many of us Paulites here started out as neocons or at least more conventional conservative Republicans. He sold a message to us that no other libertarian type had been able to do. Gary and Reason continue to bash religion and social conservatism and make it like you can't support religion or conservative principles AND liberty. Ron was able to do that. So I sympathize with what Rand is doing. Ron did it without sacrificing the message, and I hope Rand's spreading of the message will not bastardize our core principles. I'm a bit disappointed on drugs but other than that I'm totally fine with what he's doing.


I think Rand is watering it down... but yeah, Gary doesn't have a clue what libertarianism is.  Rand is really making it sound like he doesn't either, even though I know he does.

----------


## erowe1

> These people are "Warvengelical neocons."


What do you base that on?

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Cajuncocoa- I don't think its fair to judge Rand by his supporters.  I'm not pleased with everything Rand's doing either, but I would encourage you to avoid those supporters of his that you think are obnoxious and solely look at Rand Paul the man when deciding what to do.  That's what I'm trying to do.  Heck, I'm trying to ignore Ron Paul here, since I know he's biased, but I honestly do care a lot more about his take than anyone else's.

I seriously doubt Rand Paul thinks as highly of himself as the radical Randroids here think of Rand.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What do you base that on?


"Social theocrats" may be more technically accurate in this case.  Or something more nuanced.  I don't actually know, and I'm stereotyping.  My point is that just calling them "Evangelicals" is to paint with a rather broad brush.  I'm an Evangelical, and not only am I a Rand supporter, but I'm one who wishes he was more radical, and I'd definitely be tempted to vote for the foil if there actually was one...

I know they're stereotyping, and that they know they're stereotyping, but its still annoying.  Saying "Evangelicals oppose drug legalization" is just an insanely broad brush, much like Rand acting like libertarians (As a group) support smoking pot while naked.

Granted, the perception of Evangelicals is accurate more often, but being an Evangelical does not require holding those crazy views...

Ron Paul is a Baptist BTW...

----------


## TheGrinch

> I think that's a great question. Or at least I would if I thought there was even the slightest bit of justification for anyone being upset about what he said.
> 
> Notice that even the way WaPo put it, it was two different sentences.


And yet some of us are being blind "knob-slobbers" for trying to talk people off the ledge over an out-of-context quote that might even just be two sentences they strung together for all we know. 

I can assure you we wouldn't be so defensive of Rand if some didn't go on the total offensive over every little trivial thing they can find to bitch about him.

My concerns are, is he bowing down to the lobbyists or fighting for what's right? His fights over investigating and auditing the Fed, Pentagon, IRS, passing industrial hemp, etc., would suggest that he's using his position to be a thorn in their side and enact/promote whatever positive change he can. I say good for him, you can get back to me when you have real evidence that Rand is an establishment lackey. Until then I'm going to continue to tell you all that you're being overdramatic gotcha-sensationalists for disavowing the only guy getting good things accomplished in Washington. 

Gee, why would we defend by far the best Senator we have? Let's fixate on reasons why he's not the same as his father, and jump on gotcha attacks like the media. It's freaking ridiculous. Some would rather bitch and be 100% "pure" than support ANYONE trying to get things done for liberty. Think about that the next time some of you want to act like we're just being fanboys.  It's a piss-poor deflection from you being blind haters if you're going to act all butthurt over every little dumb thing like this.  Drama-queening at it's worst, and I don't think it's any accident. Some here really do want reasons to hate Rand it seems, and that's just sad.

----------


## fr33

> No it's not.
> 
> Most of Ron's supporters are going to stick with Rand. Most of the ones that won't were never "the base."


If he loses will you admit you were wrong? He has a few more years of saying things that alienate a portion of his dad's base while depending more on GOPers who've shown they can be completely manipulated by the media.

----------


## erowe1

> If he loses will you admit you were wrong? He has a few more years of saying things that alienate a portion of his dad's base while depending more on GOPers who've shown they can be completely manipulated by the media.


If he doesn't do better than Ron did, I will.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> @Cajuncocoa- I don't think its fair to judge Rand by his supporters.  I'm not pleased with everything Rand's doing either, but I would encourage you to avoid those supporters of his that you think are obnoxious and solely look at Rand Paul the man when deciding what to do.  That's what I'm trying to do.  Heck, I'm trying to ignore Ron Paul here, since I know he's biased, but I honestly do care a lot more about his take than anyone else's.
> 
> I seriously doubt Rand Paul thinks as highly of himself as the radical Randroids here think of Rand.


Nope, I'm not judging him by his supporters, just saying  they're somewhat annoying when they pretend not to get it, and having to keep hammering my point with them makes it seem like I support Rand less than I really do (good grief, it's not like he's Lindsey Graham!) I like his voting record, and I may just vote for him in 2016 (not definite) but I will say these gaffes will probably result in my donations going to help grow the LP rather than to Rand.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Notice that even the way WaPo put it, it was two different sentences.


Next month, from the _Washington Post_:




> "I support...sending troops...into...and bombing...Iran," said Rand Paul.


Followed quickly by the usual suspects here claiming Rand Paul is a neocon.

----------


## TheGrinch

> If he loses will you admit you were wrong? He has a few more years of saying things that alienate a portion of his dad's base while depending more on GOPers who've shown they can be completely manipulated by the media.


If he loses, then why do you care who he alienates? He's only alienating them from himself.

Plus that's a ridiculous standard, that if his efforts don't succeed, then we should apologize for trying.  Would it be fair for me to flip that on Ron and say he was wrong for "saying things that alienate GOP voters who are manipulated by the media, while depending more on his base"? Of course not.

----------


## Spikender

> Next month, from the _Washington Post_
> 
> Followed quickly by the usual suspects here claiming Rand Paul is a neocon.


Nice strawman.

But his leg is looking kind of limp. Need some help stuffing it back up?

----------


## TheGrinch

> Nope, I'm not judging him by his supporters, just saying  they're somewhat annoying when they pretend not to get it, and having to keep hammering my point with them makes it seem like I support Rand less than I really do (good grief, it's not like he's Lindsey Graham!) I like his voting record, and I may just vote for him in 2016 (not definite) but I will say these gaffes will probably result in my donations going to help grow the LP rather than to Rand.


You know that works both ways. I've even had to justify actions of Rand's that I don't necessarily even agree with in an attempt to make you all calm down and realize that maybe the sky isn't falling over the drama-gotcha of the week that you choose to hang on.

It is most definitely the offensive that puts some of us on the defensive, not the other way around. If it weren't for knee-jerk reactions that don't even attempt to put it into proper context, we'd have no need to defend anything.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Rand will do "Better" because he will get more votes, if that's what you consider "Better."

I personally prefer Ron's strategy on moral grounds, and I'm not convinced that all of this is purely strategy on Rand's part.  I believe he may well differ from his dad on a few points.  Grinch is correct, he's the best senator we have, and we should still support him.  We can still call him out when he's wrong.  Otherwise we really are just Randroids pretending like Rand is perfect.  He's not.

I'm still gonna vote for him, and I'm still gonna encourage others to do so.  But I'm not going to pretend I like every single word that comes out of his mouth.

For the record, I realize that technically you can construct that statement to mean that he's not a libertarian, and that he doesn't advocate everyone to run around and smoke pot, but not necessarily that libertarians advocate that.  However, he did clearly imply that libertarians do support running around naked and smoking pot.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> You know that works both ways. I've even had to justify actions of Rand's that I don't necessarily even agree with in an attempt to make you all calm down and realize that maybe the sky isn't falling over the drama-gotcha of the week that you choose to hang on.
> 
> It is most definitely the offensive that puts some of us on the defensive, not the other way around. If it weren't for knee-jerk reactions that don't even attempt to put it into proper context, we'd have no need to defend anything.


If he didn't mispeak so often, there wouldn't be a need for any of this.

----------


## jct74

> However, he did clearly imply that libertarians do support running around naked and smoking pot.


Washington Post used two sets of quotation marks to quote him, it could have been two sentences that were minutes apart.  You need the full continuous quote to be able to determine that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Nope, I'm not judging him by his supporters, just saying  they're somewhat annoying when they pretend not to get it, and having to keep hammering my point with them makes it seem like I support Rand less than I really do (good grief, it's not like he's Lindsey Graham!) I like his voting record, and I may just vote for him in 2016 (not definite) but I will say these gaffes will probably result in my donations going to help grow the LP rather than to Rand.


OK, I get you.  Right now, I'm 100% behind Rand (Note that that's not the same thing as saying I agree with him 100% of the time) but I'm definitely willing to change his mind.  It would have to be something he actually does though, not just a stupid gaffe.  If Rand got on the news tomorrow and said he wanted to bomb Iran, yeah, I'd change my plans and not support him anymore.  If Rand said he is in favor of the Federal Reserve System, or gun control, I'd wouldn't support him either.  Those three things (Well, not Iran specifically, but anti-war politics) are my litmus tests, and I won't make an exception for Ron Paul's son in that regard either.  Ted Cruz already failed on at least two of those three points, so I'm not supporting Cruz.  But I'm not going to stop supporting Rand because of a gafffe.  Heck, Tod Akin was probably horrible, but I have to laugh at Missouri for punishing him so much over a gaffe.  I hope the liberty movement is smarter than that with its people.  

Just because I'm still going to vote for Rand in spite of his silly comments doesn't mean I won't call him out though.  I get why he does it, he's trying to please the libertarians and the neocons.  Honestly, I don't believe he can do that all the way until 2016.  Eventually he'll be forced to pick a side.  The neocons will demand a bombing of Iran, and Rand Paul will have to decide whether he's going to sell out to them or not.  I'm not certain, but if I had to bet, I'd say we'll know for sure where his loyalties lie by '16.

Until we know for sure, I'll trust Ron Paul and give his son the benefit of the doubt... at least for now.

----------


## asurfaholic

It's threads like these that travel on at breakneck speeds that make me want to give up on these parts. As somebody who has been arrested for being naked in my house, and smoke pot occasionally, I do not have the first problem with what Rand said.

RPF = one hissyfit after another.

----------


## klamath

> If he doesn't do better than Ron did, I will.


Yes this. RP has a pathetic poor base to start with that many on here have conjured in their minds to be a MASSIVE electoral mandate. If Rand comes in with 9% then he lost part of his dads base and gained nothing else, then yes he blew it. However Rand has already beat he dads base by a long shot. He won a whole state with 56% where his dad only got 5  or 10 stinking percent. Ron couldn't even carry his own district as a presidential candidate. Now that is pathetic.

----------


## fr33

> If he loses, then why do you care who he alienates? He's only alienating them from himself.
> 
> Plus that's a ridiculous standard, that if his efforts don't succeed, then we should apologize for trying.  Would it be fair for me to flip that on Ron and say he was wrong for "saying things that alienate GOP voters who are manipulated by the media, while depending more on his base"? Of course not.


I want him to win. That's why I care. If his strategy doesn't work then it will have been not only a waste of time but also it will have watered down the message and caused many people who's apathy was cured to be reinfected with it.

----------


## klamath

> It's threads like these that travel on at breakneck speeds that make me want to give up on these parts. As somebody who has been arrested for being naked in my house, and smoke pot occasionally, I do not have the first problem with what Rand said.
> 
> RPF = one hissyfit after another.


 Now that is flat out honesty and I commend you.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> RPF = one hissyfit after another.






"Rand Paul said he's not a Libertarian," for the thirtieth time.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Washington Post used two sets of quotation marks to quote him, it could have been two sentences that were minutes apart.  You need the full continuous quote to be able to determine that.


Fair enough.  I'd apologize if that was the case.  I assumed he was saying both of those things together as one point.

----------


## jct74

> 1. I'm not freaking out; I'm involved in a discussion with apologists as to why this alleged quote by Rand is insulting, if indeed he did say it.


there we're some people freaking out and getting very emotional earlier in the thread when i skimmed through it, not necessarily you.




> 2. I cannot verify that it was said exactly that way other than to say that it's been quoted that way all over the Internet by now, and there's been no retraction or correction.


I think that is being too eager to try and find fault with Rand when basing it on something we don't even know exactly what was said.  Also Rand is not going to issue a clarification every time some libertarians on the internet get upset with him.

----------


## TheGrinch

> If he didn't mispeak so often, there wouldn't be a need for any of this.


The vast majority of these "misspeaks" are people taking his words out of context and having a knee-jerk reaction without even trying to put it into context. It's the same crap that the media does. I thought we were better than that than to knee-jerk and assume the worst of our own without good evidence and proper context.

I mean, just a few weeks ago Rand spends 5 of 6 minutes of an interview talking about how important it was that the Boston suspects would be given due process and a fair trial, but then makes one poor example and it's ZOMG, Rand wants to drone bomb simple burglars!", even after he just freaking emphasized due process in all cases besides an imminent threat to lives. But of course probably nearly all criticizing him didn't even bother to watch the full interview for context. 

So don't give me this crap like he's constantly mis-speaking. People are mis-listening and jumping to unfounded conclusions.

----------


## Brett85

> As radically pro-life as I am (And you know I'm pro-life based on my comments to you in the past) I don't see how, beyond perhaps the occasional pardon of an anti-abortion vigilante, Federal regulation of abortion is constitutional at all.


I think it falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.  That's an issue I disagreed with Ron on.  But, I fully agree with him on the drug war.

----------


## jct74

> Fair enough.  I'd apologize if that was the case.  I assumed he was saying both of those things together as one point.


the media has misquoted him several times before, particularly when he was running for senate, it was really ridiculous. there was one story that came out where AP said he was against medical marijuana, they didn't provide a quote but just said he came out against medical marijuana in an interview and it really upset a lot of libertarians, but it turned out to be false. Also there was the whole debacle about the fake quote in the transcript issued by MSNBC after the Maddow interview that then got picked up by AP and New York Times and syndicated into hundreds of articles... so it is good to be mindful/wary of these kinds of things that have happened before.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think it falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.  That's an issue I disagreed with Ron on.  But, I fully agree with him on the drug war.


You know, I'm not really comfortable using the 14th for anything, since I'm not convinced that a ratification the Confederate States were forced to sign really counts as a real ratification... I believe the 14th was improperly ratified.   However, let's ignored that for a second and look at the relevant section:




> *Section 1.* All persons* born or naturalized in the United States*, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of *citizens of the United States*; nor shall any *State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,* without due process of law; nor _deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_.


I don't like the 14ths definition of personhood (One more reason to scrap it) but it does seem to define a person as  "Born or naturalized in the United States."  The unborn don't seem to be in view at all.  I know you can loosely construct it that way, but that's the very thing we accuse liberals of doing it all the time.  I'd honestly rather not play that game.

The Constitution defines personhood as being for a person "Born or naturalized in the United States."  I disagree with that, but that's how the constitution defines it.  Granted, it doesn't limit personhood to that, so I see no reason why a state couldn't expand it to include the unborn, but I don't think it legally does as the  14th is written.

Are you a strict constructionist?  How do you derive that conclusion with a strict construction of the text?

Now, I agree with you that my ideal is that anyone calling itself part of the United States should have to protect the unborn.  But that would require an amendment, IMO.  I'm not ready to go for that right now unless its carefully worded... because the current penalty for defying the Feds is war and destruction, not expulsion.

----------


## TheGrinch

Ya know, I was just thinking, even if you assume the worst of Rand's quotes (and of course I don't), why should it be his place to assume or defend the stereotypes and baggage that libertarians have, and some of our own have created. It's not as if he's the first person to speak of this stereotype of libertarians, but that's on us to repair that perception, not the man who doesn't claim to be a libertarian to assume the burden of another group. 

That's not fair to him to have to deal with others baggage, when he has to worry about unfair perceptions about himself. 

And as I said earlier, who cares if evangelicals who already have a bad perception about libertarians continue to do so. I agree with lots of folks on many issues, even many who I may dislike such as racists.  Should I go on to defend racists, or should I disassociate myself from the damage they do and just stick to why I believe in these issues and you should too? Why should Rand have to?

----------


## Christian Liberty

He shouldn't have to outright repair the stereotype, but he shouldn't be egging it on either.

----------


## TheGrinch

> He shouldn't have to outright repair the stereotype, but he shouldn't be egging it on either.


There are more in the libertarian movement who've aided in that perception FAR more than this relatively innocent disassociation that will be forgotten about in a week among the very few who are even aware or care about it.

What will last however is evangelical leaders feeling far more comfortable in his intentions being in line with theirs, and not seeking to undermine them.

If this really insults you, then grow some thicker skin and realize why he feels the need to disassociate himself from others baggage (and again, this is assuming the worst of the out-of-context and perhaps completely separate statements)

----------


## Barrex

So... can someone summarize 20 pages in few simple and small sentences?

----------


## klamath

Libertarian themselves gave me the stereotype view I have of a large portion of then. For thrity years I thought I was a libertarian that voted mostly republican until I joined this forum. I remember gasping in horror when I heard rush limbaugh refer to libertarians as being only interested in drug use. After a few years around here ...eh.. maybe he had a point. 
If I flipped out every time some libertarian around here made a general insulting comment about republicans I would have to hire a 10 man typing staff to express my continuous OUTRAGE at the insults!

----------


## klamath

> So... can someone summarize 20 pages in few simple and small sentences?


same $#@!, different day... er thread

----------


## Brett85

> The Constitution defines personhood as being for a person "Born or naturalized in the United States."  I disagree with that, but that's how the constitution defines it.


That's why it would be necessary to create a federal law that clarifies that the 14th amendment should apply to the unborn.  That's what Rand's bill does, and Ron's "Sanctity of Human Life" bill was also similar.  But, if a pro life President doesn't believe that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to ban abortion, I think he or she should at least be in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.  Such an amendment is unlikely to pass, but the principle of supporting such an amendment is important.

----------


## Sullivan*

I don't consider myself a libertarian either.  I don't know what Rand's point was, however I personally don't like being lumped in together with a bunch of people someone hearing a certain label might not even think of as libertarian.  I'm an American, I hold traditional American views, and anyone who believes anything I believe to be incompatible with their ideology and philosophy to the point where they would treat me as a second-class citizen without any say in decisions that effect me and my family personally, is not someone I would wish to be neighbors with, and therefore a fellow citizen.  I don't care who they identify themselves as, even if they call themselves a classical liberal or libertarian.

Screw that, screw you and screw your dog.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

So for a certain group of people Rand can do no wrong. If you critize Rand in any way, if you deviate from the Gospel of His High Holiness Rand Paul, the Giver of Sight, Breaker of Chains, Clother of Hippies, they will troll you endlessly. They will go to any length it takes to derail a thread and make sure real discussion of Rand doesn't happen. They are nothing but trolls and I highly recommend you put them all on ignore so we can have a real, honest discussion. 

The following have been added to my ignore list for this very reason. 

FrankRep
RonPaulFanInGA

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There are more in the libertarian movement who've aided in that perception FAR more than this relatively innocent disassociation that will be forgotten about in a week among the very few who are even aware or care about it.
> 
> What will last however is evangelical leaders feeling far more comfortable in his intentions being in line with theirs, and not seeking to undermine them.
> 
> If this really insults you, then grow some thicker skin and realize why he feels the need to disassociate himself from others baggage (and again, this is assuming the worst of the out-of-context and perhaps completely separate statements)


I'm not seriously offended, I've dealt with being picked on all my life anyways.  And I know Rand is just playing politics and doesn't really believe that all libertarians are pot smoking nudists.  I mean, Rand grew up with his dad...after all, and I'm pretty sure that never happened.

I'm not really offended, I just think it was a stupid and insensetive comment.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So for a certain group of people Rand can do no wrong. If you critize Rand in any way, if you deviate from the Gospel of His High Holiness Rand Paul, the Giver of Sight, Breaker of Chains, Clother of Hippies, they will troll you endlessly. They will go to any length it takes to derail a thread and make sure real discussion of Rand doesn't happen. They are nothing but trolls and I highly recommend you put them all on ignore so we can have a real, honest discussion. 
> 
> The following have been added to my ignore list for this very reason. 
> 
> FrankRep
> TraditionalConservative
> Warlord
> RonPaulFanInGA


TraditionalConservative definitely isn't in that category.  In fact, he's criticized Rand in this very thread.  Granted, he is a Rand supporter, as am I, but he's not one of those.

I'm not really sure Warlord is one of those either, he defended Rand this time, but I think he's been critical of him before.

----------


## Brett85

> So for a certain group of people Rand can do no wrong. If you critize Rand in any way, if you deviate from the Gospel of His High Holiness Rand Paul, the Giver of Sight, Breaker of Chains, Clother of Hippies, they will troll you endlessly. They will go to any length it takes to derail a thread and make sure real discussion of Rand doesn't happen. They are nothing but trolls and I highly recommend you put them all on ignore so we can have a real, honest discussion. 
> 
> The following have been added to my ignore list for this very reason. 
> 
> FrankRep
> TraditionalConservative
> Warlord
> RonPaulFanInGA


Um, I'm not exactly sure why I'm on that list.  I've done nothing but criticize Rand on this thread and other recent threads.  Another poster here called me a "Rand hater" yesterday.  So to you I'm a "Rand shill," and to this other poster I'm a "Rand hater."  It sounds like my position on Rand is about right.  I'm neither a hater nor someone who thinks that he can never be criticized.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I just got back so maybe I'm wrong. They have acted that way in this thread, IMO.

----------


## Brett85

Back on the abortion issue.  The 5th amendment does contain these words as well.

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Granted, that doesn't specifically mention abortion, but it says that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

----------


## Brett85

> Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. I just got back so maybe I'm wrong. They have acted that way in this thread, IMO.


I haven't defended Rand in this thread.  I just criticized you for saying "f*ck you Rand."  I thought you should've criticized him in a more civil way.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

TC: I apologize and retract my comment. I guess I didn't pay close enough attention to the names.

Seriously felt like 6-7 posters. It was a blur.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Ohhh, so that's what that other thread was about.

Got it.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

First time using the ignore list.  Pretty disappointing; has this big, ugly wall over the user's post.  Would be better if it [the posts] just disappeared completely.

----------


## TheGrinch

> I agree. I love the taste of lamb.





> Back on the abortion issue.  The 5th amendment does contain these words as well.
> 
> "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
> 
> Granted, that doesn't specifically mention abortion, but it says that no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.


Lol, I'm not one of those trolls who derails threads, now let's talk about a completely unrelated hot button issue 

Just teasing, but that gave me a good chuckle

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> So for a certain group of people Rand can do no wrong. If you critize Rand in any way, if you deviate from the Gospel of His High Holiness Rand Paul, the Giver of Sight, Breaker of Chains, Clother of Hippies, they will troll you endlessly. They will go to any length it takes to derail a thread and make sure real discussion of Rand doesn't happen. *They are nothing but trolls and I highly recommend you put them all on ignore so we can have a real, honest discussion*.


Oh the rank, unfiltered hypocrisy:




> *$#@! RAND PAUL*

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I haven't defended Rand in this thread.  I just criticized you for saying "f*ck you Rand."  I thought you should've criticized him in a more civil way.


I need to learn to wait a bit before posting instead immediately reacted to the Rand stuff. I used to be a huge supporter so I'm pretty emotionally invested. It's almost like watching Ron do it, and you just sit there wondering what the ff* happened.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's why it would be necessary to create a federal law that clarifies that the 14th amendment should apply to the unborn.  That's what Rand's bill does, and Ron's "Sanctity of Human Life" bill was also similar.  But, if a pro life President doesn't believe that the federal government has the Constitutional authority to ban abortion, I think he or she should at least be in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.  Such an amendment is unlikely to pass, but the principle of supporting such an amendment is important.


Ron's sanctity of life is a bit weird as it does define life as beginning at conception but literally does nothing at all to actually make the states enforce the law.  Technically I don't agree that the Feds have the right to define life as beginning at conception but IIRC they can take jurisdiction from the courts, and that they should do.  I'd have voted for the bill.

But yes, assuming the amendment was correctly worded, I'd support the amendment.  I just don't believe the constitution currently makes this a Federal issue.




> Um, I'm not exactly sure why I'm on that list.  I've done nothing but criticize Rand on this thread and other recent threads.  Another poster here called me a "Rand hater" yesterday.  So to you I'm a "Rand shill," and to this other poster I'm a "Rand hater."  It sounds like my position on Rand is about right.  I'm neither a hater nor someone who thinks that he can never be criticized.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Lol, I'm not one of those trolls who derails threads, now let's talk about a completely unrelated hot button issue 
> 
> Just teasing, but that gave me a good chuckle


I do my best

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh the rank, unfiltered hypocrisy:


I didn't post that.  I was responding to it.  And for the record, I didn't actually say a word about you specifically.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Oh the rank, unfiltered hypocrisy:


Somebody tell him he misquoted FreedomFanatic. I said both quotes.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> I didn't post that.  I was responding to it.  And for the record, I didn't actually say a word about you specifically.


I know.  I'll change it.  I was only able to ever see that post because you quoted it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Lol, I'm not one of those trolls who derails threads, now let's talk about a completely unrelated hot button issue 
> 
> Just teasing, but that gave me a good chuckle



I don't remember why that was brought up but I was curious about his reasoning.  This thread is pretty much pointless now anyways...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I know.  I'll change it.  I was only able to ever see that post because you quoted it.


No problem, that's fine...

----------


## Rudeman

> You know, this is where I intended to be, but I'm really turned off by the way Rand's supporters defend every gaffe and every troublesome comment.* After while those things add up and start to mean something.
> 
> *I realize I come off as the bad guy to Rand's supporters, but I consider it their own fault because I have to keep explaining over and over to several of his defenders why the gaffe-of-the-week is problematic.



I found this post funny because that is what a lot of Republicans would say about Ron Paul supporters.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I found this post funny because that is what a lot of Republicans would say about Ron Paul supporters.


Who gives a crap what those people think?  I don't.

BTW, I thought we were *all* Ron Paul supporters here.

----------


## Rudeman

> How would you feel when everytime you defended the first amendment for instance, everyone chastised you for wanting everyone to run around screaming profanities, sexually erotic comments, and all sorts of other misogynistic and racist remarks? Oh you're just a racist, misogynistic, pedaphile when you defend the first amendment! That's the same tortured and twisted logic people apply whenever you say you want to legalize prostitution, substances (aka drugs), or other activities that puritans don't like to have to admit exists and people have a right to engage in. So, yeah, your 'heaven on Earth' is HELL.



I would try to distance myself from those type of comments. Something like I support the 1st amendment but I certainly don't advocate racist/misogynistic etc. type of comments.


If I were a liberty politician then I'd probably end up having a thread accusing me of not really supporting the 1st amendment or something like that. Just because I wouldn't advocate those type of comments doesn't mean I would want to restrict your right to say them. Basically the goal is to disarm their attack before they attack you. I'm sure Rand is fully aware of the attacks that are directed, I mean even Ron wasn't really for full legalization in the way that someone like GJ was. I certainly can't speak for Ron but if I had to guess he also wouldn't advocate drug use or the scenario Rand mentioned.

----------


## Rudeman

> Who gives a crap what those people think?  I don't.
> 
> BTW, I thought we were *all* Ron Paul supporters here.



Did someone imply that someone wasn't a Ron Paul supporter? I'm certainly a Ron Paul supporter and I've already said I would prefer Ron over Rand. 

I really don't care if you give a crap I just found the comment funny. You certainly don't have to share my sense of humor.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I would try to distance myself from those type of comments. Something like I support the 1st amendment but I certainly don't advocate racist/misogynistic etc. type of comments.
> 
> 
> If I were a liberty politician then I'd probably end up having a thread accusing me of not really supporting the 1st amendment or something like that. Just because I wouldn't advocate those type of comments doesn't mean I would want to restrict your right to say them. Basically the goal is to disarm their attack before they attack you. I'm sure Rand is fully aware of the attacks that are directed, I mean even Ron wasn't really for full legalization in the way that someone like GJ was. I certainly can't speak for Ron but if I had to guess he also wouldn't advocate drug use or the scenario Rand mentioned.


You don't understand. Rand made the same twisted logic as the example I gave above. As for Ron, he was for full legalization of all substances lol...Gary doesn't even come close since he was only 'for' legalization of MJ and nothing else. Honestly, the people who make these ridiculous leaps of logic aren't going to be on your side anyways. Why even address their non-sense? I'd just roll my eyes at them like Ron did.

----------


## Brett85

Even beyond the states' rights aspect of this, I just don't see how marijuana legalization is even controversial anymore since even Pat Robertson has endorsed it.  Is Pat Robertson now a "radical libertarian?"

----------


## Rudeman

> You don't understand. Rand made the same twisted logic as the example I gave above. As for Ron, he was for full legalization of all substances lol...Gary doesn't even come close since he was only 'for' legalization of MJ and nothing else. Honestly, the people who make these ridiculous leaps of logic aren't going to be on your side anyways. Why even address their non-sense? I'd just roll my eyes at them like Ron did.


Gary was actively promoting MJ, Ron never promoted or advocated drug use. Rolling your eyes probably isn't the best thing to do when you're appealing for their support. As for why address the issue, because apparently it was a concern with the group he was discussing with.

Maybe I don't understand, it wouldn't be the first time.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I don't remember why that was brought up but I was curious about his reasoning.  *This thread is pretty much pointless now anyways...*


Couldn't agree more!

----------


## Thor

This whole $#@!ing thread is funny....  An opportunity to possibly make headway and win...  self destruct mechanism kicks in high gear...  $#@! ya'll...

I will vote RAND and if he $#@!s me, so be it...

----------


## Brett85

> Gary was actively promoting MJ, Ron never promoted or advocated drug use. Rolling your eyes probably isn't the best thing to do when you're appealing for their support. As for why address the issue, because apparently it was a concern with the group he was discussing with.
> 
> Maybe I don't understand, it wouldn't be the first time.


When did Gary Johnson "advocate" or "promote drug use?"  It seemed like his position was the same as Ron's, which is simply that prohibition doesn't work.

----------


## FrankRep

> This whole $#@!ing thread is funny....  An opportunity to possibly make headway and win...  self destruct mechanism kicks in high gear...  $#@! ya'll...
> 
> I will vote RAND and if he $#@!s me, so be it...


The part that libertarians seem to miss is that Rand Paul is doing an excellent job in the Senate.

----------


## fr33

> This whole $#@!ing thread is funny....  An opportunity to possibly make headway and win...  self destruct mechanism kicks in high gear...  $#@! ya'll...
> 
> I will vote RAND and if he $#@!s me, so be it...


The funny thing is most people criticizing him are going to vote for him too. The controversy arises when we want to correct something he says wrong. How dare we speak truth to power. We must be Rand haters.

----------


## Rudeman

> When did Gary Johnson "advocate" or "promote drug use?"  It seemed like his position was the same as Ron's, which is simply that prohibition doesn't work.









> GJ: *You know I grew up smoking marijuana so that as a preface, what i understood right off the bat was that in no category was marijuana more dangerous than alcohol, that it was a terrific alternative to alcohol.* Back in 1971, I, in my wildest dreams did not believe that it would still be illegal, that it would still be criminal, that people would still be going to jail 40 years later. And that’s what we have here.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When did Gary Johnson "advocate" or "promote drug use?"  It seemed like his position was the same as Ron's, which is simply that prohibition doesn't work.


I don't think he promoted it, but IIRC he did use medical MJ.  I don't really have any issue with that, but I can see why people thought he was "For" it in that case.  Ron Paul has never seen the stuff so its even more ridiculous to try to say he's pro-MJ.




> I found this post funny because that is what a lot of Republicans would say about Ron Paul supporters.





> Who gives a crap what those people think?  I don't.
> 
> BTW, I thought we were *all* Ron Paul supporters here.


Ron Paul isn't perfect, of course, but he cared about principle more than he did about politics.  Yes, he did sometimes play the game, but only when doing so was not against his principles.  Endorsements, for example, don't matter (I love the quote in TradCon's signature about this) and there's nothing per say unprincipled about endorsing an idiot.  I don't care for Rand's Romney endorsement, since I thought Obama was the lesser of two evils (Although that's really like saying Hitler was less bad than Stalin because he  didn't kill quite as many people.... that's honestly how it feels) and I'd probably rather get shot in the head than to seriously suggest anyone should vote for either of them.  But... if someone had put a gun to my head, I'd have preferred Obama.  If nothing else, Rand Paul actually has a shot with Obama winning, not so with Mitt.  But, what was he supposed to do?  All of Rand Paul's smart supporters ignored him when he endorsed Romney anyway... all the dumb ones actually agreed with him (Not that it was a smart political move... which is why Rand did it... but the dumb ones actually thought a Romney/Ryan vote was actually a good idea.)  He didn't really lose anything by it.  It was a smart political move.

Rand isn't just playing the game sometimes though, he's willing to play the game even if it means compromise.  I don't like that, but I also understand why he's doing it.  Its his business what he wants to do.  All I can really say is that if he makes any serious foreign policy, gun control, or FED compromises, I'm not going to support him anymore.  (For the record, even though I don't like it, when I say a  serious compromise, I mean actually wanting to go to war with someone.  I can live with the moderation on sanctions and bases, even though I don't particularly like it.)




> You don't understand. Rand made the same twisted logic as the example I gave above. As for Ron, he was for full legalization of all substances lol...Gary doesn't even come close since he was only 'for' legalization of MJ and nothing else. Honestly, the people who make these ridiculous leaps of logic aren't going to be on your side anyways. Why even address their non-sense? I'd just roll my eyes at them like Ron did.


Gary Johnson was only for legalization of MJ, correct.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Even beyond the states' rights aspect of this, I just don't see how marijuana legalization is even controversial anymore since even Pat Robertson has endorsed it.


Why didn't Ron Paul embrace it in 1996?  He ran pretty hard away from his past pro-drug stances while running for Congress again as a non-imcumbent:




> Despite Morris' hard evidence, Paul continued to shade the truth weeks after the drug hullabaloo -- *the Colorado County Citizen reported on a political rally in Columbus where Paul stated that he had not supported drug legalization*. Though Paul's memory lapses have been frequent, they should not be blamed on excess marijuana use. In fact, he stresses that he's never seen an illegal drug and wrote in his newsletter that while he wants to legalize drugs, he does not condone their use: "Who knows... they might turn you into a raving liberal." *Two weeks after Morris' ad underlining Paul's views on drug laws, Paul wore his white physician's smock in his own TV commercial, promising "to get the drugs out of town."*
> 
> http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/1996-11-01/525510/

----------


## Christian Liberty

You can support legalizing drugs and still oppose drug use.  I do.

----------


## Thor

> You can support legalizing drugs and still oppose drug use.  I do.


I am 100% on board with RSO (Rick Simpson (Hemp) Oil) - and maybe Rand doesn't know what that is yet and what it has healed....  but none the less, I am willing to bet he is open minded enough to at least look at the facts (Google: "Rick Simpson Oil Cancer" if you have any questions....)

But perhaps I am wrong...  maybe Rand supports big Pharma too....

----------


## Brett85

> You can support legalizing drugs and still oppose drug use.  I do.


Me too.  My goal is to legalize drugs and then convince every single American not to use them.

----------


## Brett85

> Why didn't Ron Paul embrace it in 1996?  He ran pretty hard away from his past pro-drug stances while running for Congress again as a non-imcumbent:


I don't know, but he sure didn't run away from his views last year, even though it wasn't politically expedient to do so.  Maybe Ron became more hardcore and uncompromising as he got older.  But, saying that Heroin should be legalized in a GOP debate certainly wasn't politically expedient.

But, this isn't 1996.  In 1996, support for legalizing marijuana was at about 20%, and today it's at about 55%.  Times have changed.

----------


## Thor

> Me too.  My goal is to legalize drugs and then convince every single American not to use them.


Alcohol is a good test model...  how did that work out?  Oh wait...  no recorded death due to THC...  hmmm...  ok, scrap that...  

"Drugs are bad, mmmmkay?"  (But cannabinoids are part of the human anatomy...  confused....)

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Going back to that 1996 news column, I sort of feel like if Rand Paul said this:




> In fact, [Ron Paul] stresses that he's never seen an illegal drug and wrote in his newsletter that while he wants to legalize drugs, he does not condone their use: "Who knows... they might turn you into a raving liberal."


It would result in another blow-up thread.  It's not much different from the BS "Rand Paul said Libertarians are druggies!"  One can almost see the thread title on this site now: "Rand Paul says peaceful marijuana smokers are raving liberals!"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Me too.  My goal is to legalize drugs and then *convince every single American not to use them*.


Good luck, that's a bit utopian

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Well, I never expected this thread to go on this long.  This is longer than any other thread I've started, and yet, not one person has apologized for Rand's statement.  Not one person has said: I am sorry, that Rand said that, and I want to personally apologize as his surrogate."

Instead, All I've gotten is "We evangelicals don't need you anyway".

Way to maintain the coalition, guys.

----------


## klamath

> Well, I never expected this thread to go on this long.  This is longer than any other thread I've started, and yet, not one person has apologized for Rand's statement.  Not one person has said: I am sorry, that Rand said that, and I want to personally apologize as his surrogate."
> 
> Instead, All I've gotten is "We evangelicals don't need you anyway".
> 
> Way to maintain the coalition, guys.


way to break up a coalition guy, posting inflamatory thread. But for your information that coalition has long since split. What exists here now is just a normal news story free for all comment section. There is NO unified goal or coalition anymore.

----------


## Rudeman

> Well, I never expected this thread to go on this long.  This is longer than any other thread I've started, and yet, not one person has apologized for Rand's statement.  Not one person has said: I am sorry, that Rand said that, and I want to personally apologize as his surrogate."
> 
> Instead, All I've gotten is "We evangelicals don't need you anyway".
> 
> Way to maintain the coalition, guys.


What is there to apologize for? What offended you? Why do you want an apology? Would an apology change anything for you?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> But for your information that coalition has long since split. What exists here now is just a normal news story free for all comment section. There is NO unified goal or coalition anymore.


This might be the first true thing you've posted all day.

----------


## sailingaway

> Going back to that 1996 news column, I sort of feel like if Rand Paul said this:
> 
> 
> 
> It would result in another blow-up thread.  It's not much different from the BS "Rand Paul said Libertarians are druggies!"  One can almost see the thread title on this site now: "Rand Paul says peaceful marijuana smokers are raving liberals!"


quit picking fights.

That is simply hilarious, and notice the ellipses.  Again, Rove was driving the media against Ron in 1996 hence the newsletter crap.

----------


## sailingaway

> Well, I never expected this thread to go on this long.  This is longer than any other thread I've started, and yet, not one person has apologized for Rand's statement.  Not one person has said:* I am sorry, that Rand said that, and I want to personally apologize as his surrogate*."
> 
> Instead, All I've gotten is "We evangelicals don't need you anyway".
> 
> Way to maintain the coalition, guys.


re bolded, that seems a bizarrely unlibertarian view to take if you identify as a libertarian. Ron sure as hell doesn't apologize for anything anyone else says, why would any of us? 

No one is anyone's surrogate here.

----------


## devil21

Thread now seems like a distraction from all the actually important stuff going on.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@Sailing- Nobody should apologize for Rand.  But they shouldn't just act like Ron Paul's radical libertarian base doesn't matter either.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> What is there to apologize for? What offended you? Why do you want an apology? Would an apology change anything for you?


Because he stereotyped me as a nudist pothead.  I am a Libertarian, and I have never used nor advocated the use of marijuana, nor have I ever gone out in public naked, or advocated that anyone else do so, yet He dismissed me in a public setting as advocating nudity and marijuana use, as if my financial and activist support of his campaign is useless.

----------


## jct74

> Because he stereotyped me as a nudist pothead.  I am a Libertarian, and I have never used nor advocated the use of marijuana, nor have I ever gone out in public naked, or advocated that anyone else do so, yet He dismissed me in a public setting as advocating nudity and marijuana use, as if my financial and activist support of his campaign is useless.


but do you have the full continuous quote to be able to determine that?  Rand was quoted with two sets of quotation marks, so the sentences he spoke could have been minutes apart.

the media has twisted Rand's words many times before, I give Rand the benefit the doubt before I give it to some MSM rag.  Jack Hunter brought up this point in a column he wrote a few weeks ago.
http://www.southernavenger.com/uncat...-of-the-doubt/

----------


## cajuncocoa

> but do you have the full continuous quote to be able to determine that?  Rand was quoted with two sets of quotation marks, so the sentences he spoke could have been minutes apart.


I contacted his office via email to ask this question.  Will post it here if I get a response. I really hope you're right, jct74.

----------


## supermario21

What does Karl Rove have anything to do with Ron's 1996 campaign? When he was running against Lefty Morris that was the general election, not a primary.

----------


## radiofriendly

This post is hilariously our of hand and now getting very childish...Anyone who has been out campaigning for Ron Paul (in multiple states), I would imagine has come across some (not the rule--not saying the majority) nudist (or some sort of crazy sex workers) and pot heads that you had to conspire to hide from Republican donors. This happend in Iowa and New Hampshire. Anyone meet Star Child in Iowa? Yep, that was his name. In New Hampshire I went canvassing with Ron Paul's grandaughters--and they were given printed propaganda to hand out promoting Ron Paul and pot by the local...grassroots...organizers. These "activists" were canvassing for Ron Paul - but just dropping off legalization flyers...

If you don't have a sense of humor about this stuff, you must be insane!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> This post is hilariously our of hand and now getting very childish...Anyone who has been out campaigning for Ron Paul (in multiple states), I would imagine has come across some nudist (or some sort of crazy sex workers) and pot heads that you had to conspire to hide from Republican donors. This happend in Iowa and New Hampshire. Anyone meet Star Child in Iowa? Yep, that was his name. In New Hampshire I went canvassing with Ron Paul's grandaughters--and they were given printed propaganda to hand out promoting Ron Paul and pot by the local...grassroots...organizers. These "activists" were canvassing for Ron Paul - but just dropping off legalization flyers...
> 
> If you don't have a sense of humor about this stuff, you must be insane!


Did *Ron* make a comment about these supporters to suggest that they embarrassed him, or that he thought they were crazy?

----------


## radiofriendly

> Did *Ron* make a comment about these supporters to suggest that they embarrassed him, or that he thought they were crazy?


Rand was making a joke based on a very real stereotype. As has been pointed out, the "quotes" are also out of context. There is a very real perception in the public that libertarian=libertine. Remember, Bill Maher went around for years calling himself a "libertarian." The average Republican is a low-information voter, as Rush would say...

----------


## erowe1

> Did *Ron* make a comment about these supporters to suggest that they embarrassed him, or that he thought they were crazy?


Probably.

----------


## KingNothing

> Going back to that 1996 news column, I sort of feel like if Rand Paul said this:
> 
> 
> 
> It would result in another blow-up thread.  It's not much different from the BS "Rand Paul said Libertarians are druggies!"  One can almost see the thread title on this site now: "Rand Paul says peaceful marijuana smokers are raving liberals!"


This is absolutely true.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Rand was making a joke based on a very real stereotype. As has been pointed out, the "quotes" are also out of context. There is a very real perception in the public that libertarian=libertine. Remember, Bill Maher went around for years calling himself a "libertarian." The average Republican is a low-information voter, as Rush would say...




The quotes may be out of context. There's no guarantee of that. Keep your facts straight.

----------


## erowe1

> The quotes may be out of context. There's no guarantee of that. Keep your facts straight.


Having just admitted this, then what's your problem with what Rand said? Or are you mad because of something you merely think he might have said?

----------


## erowe1

Honestly, Ron Paul could have said this exact same thing when he ran for president, and if he had, everyone here would just wink, nod, and chuckle. Nobody would be surprised or bothered.

----------


## Christian Liberty

If he was really just JOKING than I could understand that.  And I'm not really offended.  I generally don't give a crap about the sociopaths known as "Politicians."  I know I'm a libertarian and that I don't run around naked smoking pot.  I also know Rand knows better.  I just don't like that Rand was reenforcing the stereotype.

----------


## Rudeman

> Because he stereotyped me as a nudist pothead.  I am a Libertarian, and I have never used nor advocated the use of marijuana, nor have I ever gone out in public naked, or advocated that anyone else do so, yet He dismissed me in a public setting as advocating nudity and marijuana use, as if my financial and activist support of his campaign is useless.


Except he didn't. Even if you take the quotes the worst way possible it would be that libertarians advocate pot use/running around naked.

It's pretty obvious to me that Rand said that he doesn't advocate pot and running around naked. You apparently agree with this since you also don't advocate those activities.

Rand has also said numerous times that he isn't a libertarian. 

You chose to link the 2 statements together, because he clearly didn't say what you thought he did.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Except he didn't. Even if you take the quotes the worst way possible it would be that libertarians advocate pot use/running around naked.
> 
> It's pretty obvious to me that Rand said that he doesn't advocate pot and running around naked. You apparently agree with this since you also don't advocate those activities.
> 
> Rand has also said numerous times that he isn't a libertarian. 
> 
> You chose to link the 2 statements together, because he clearly didn't say what you thought he did.




I know this is really difficult  so let me try to simplify it for you

Rudeman:  Even if you take the quotes the worst way possible it would be that *libertarians advocate pot use/running around naked*.

Icymudpuppy:  "I *am* a Libertarian" (post #856)

Rand:  "I'm not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot ...Im *not* a libertarian."

Icymudpuppy:  "he (Rand) stereotyped me as a nudist pothead" (see Rand quotes above)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Honestly, Ron Paul could have said this exact same thing when he ran for president, and if he had, everyone here would just wink, nod, and chuckle. Nobody would be surprised or bothered.


I'd be shocked that Ron Paul said he wasn't a libertarian.  "Libertarian" wasn't really a term he used, at least not particularly often, but he was clearly advocating libertarian political views.  Granted, not  absolute 100% pure libertarianism (See his comment about defaming people during the SC "Legalize heroin speech"), and definitely coming from a constitutional state's rights perspective, but he clearly was a libertarian, or at least predominately so.

Ron Paul didn't generally play politics either so he would have never said this.  Granted, he did, but not at the expense of principle.

----------


## Rudeman

> I know this is really difficult  so let me try to simplify it for you
> 
> Rudeman:  Even if you take the quotes the worst way possible it would be that *libertarians advocate pot use/running around naked*.
> 
> Icymudpuppy:  "I *am* a Libertarian" (post #856)
> 
> Rand:  "I'm not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot ...Im *not* a libertarian."
> 
> Icymudpuppy:  "he (Rand) stereotyped me as a nudist pothead" (see Rand quotes above)


Right, what part are you stuck at? Rand didn't say libertarians are nudist potheads. Again if you take it the worst way possible he would be implying that libertarians advocate for it.

----------


## Rudeman

> I'd be shocked that Ron Paul said he wasn't a libertarian.  "Libertarian" wasn't really a term he used, at least not particularly often, but he was clearly advocating libertarian political views.  Granted, not  absolute 100% pure libertarianism (See his comment about defaming people during the SC "Legalize heroin speech"), and definitely coming from a constitutional state's rights perspective, but he clearly was a libertarian, or at least predominately so.
> 
> Ron Paul didn't generally play politics either so he would have never said this.  Granted, he did, but not at the expense of principle.


Rand has said numerous times he wasn't a libertarian, many here have pointed out that Rand isn't a libertarian, why would it now be a big issue? I don't think he has ever claimed or pretended to be a libertarian.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Right, what part are you stuck at? Rand didn't say libertarians are nudist potheads. Again if you take it the worst way possible he would be implying that libertarians advocate for it.


Except that still plays into an untrue negative stereotype.  Libertarians don't advocate any such thing....the only thing true libertarians advocate is "live and let live".  I mean, if running around naked while smoking pot is your thing, we're not going to stand in your way....but that's not the same thing as advocating.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand has said numerous times he wasn't a libertarian, many here have pointed out that Rand isn't a libertarian, why would it now be a big issue? I don't think he has ever claimed or pretended to be a libertarian.


In the post you replied to, FF was speaking about RON Paul.  

Everyone knows that Rand is not a libertarian!  (Of course when I tried to say this a few months ago, I got flamed by everyone telling me "he's just like his Dad!!")

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand has said numerous times he wasn't a libertarian, many here have pointed out that Rand isn't a libertarian, why would it now be a big issue? I don't think he has ever claimed or pretended to be a libertarian.





> In the post you replied to, FF was speaking about RON Paul.


This.


> Everyone knows that Rand is not a libertarian!  (Of course when I tried to say this a few months ago, I got flamed by everyone telling me "he's just like his Dad!!")


All I know is that he's running on a conservative platform.  I may not agree with the idea that he's a secret agent, but I can't totally discount it either.  I can, however, say that I'm going to assume that he means what he says when using my vote.

I still think there's a chance that he's purer than he's letting on.  I'm not convinced, but I think its possible.  I also, however, think its possible that the District of Criminals either has him or will have him soon.  You just can't know anything for sure.




> Except that still plays into an untrue negative stereotype.  Libertarians don't advocate any such thing....the only thing true libertarians advocate is "live and let live".  I mean, if running around naked while smoking pot is your thing, we're not going to stand in your way....but that's not the same thing as advocating.


This...

----------


## Rudeman

> Except that still plays into an untrue negative stereotype.  Libertarians don't advocate any such thing....the only thing true libertarians advocate is "live and let live".  I mean, if running around naked while smoking pot is your thing, we're not going to stand in your way....but that's not the same thing as advocating.



I understand that but people were saying that Rand was implying that libertarians were nudist potheads and that was simply not true even if you took what he said the worst way possible. I don't take his comments that way, I view it as clearly 2 different statements. So personally I don't see it as something to be upset about, unfortunately there isn't video or audio of his statement instead of this clearly clipped quote.

----------


## Rudeman

> This.
> 
> All I know is that he's running on a conservative platform.  I may not agree with the idea that he's a secret agent, but I can't totally discount it either.  I can, however, say that I'm going to assume that he means what he says when using my vote.
> 
> I still think there's a chance that he's purer than he's letting on.  I'm not convinced, but I think its possible.  I also, however, think its possible that the District of Criminals either has him or will have him soon.  You just can't know anything for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> This...


I'm not sure why it would matter. I almost agree with Ron on everything but I wouldn't call myself a libertarian. I even voted for GJ and there's a lot that I don't agree with him on (a lot more than Rand).

I really don't care what Ron, Rand or anyone else wants to label themselves as (or if they simply refuse to label themselves). What really matters to me is what they do. I mean how many phonies have called themselves libertarians? Does it really matter to you that they label themselves as a libertarian?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I understand that but people were saying that Rand was implying that libertarians were nudist potheads and that was simply not true even if you took what he said the worst way possible. I don't take his comments that way, I view it as clearly 2 different statements. So personally I don't see it as something to be upset about, unfortunately there isn't video or audio of his statement instead of this clearly clipped quote.


Since you don't call yourself a libertarian and therefore never have to deal with these stereotypes I can understand that you would feel differently about it. I just wish that Rand supporters could see this from the libertarians' point of view. Since most of you either can't or won't, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree and live with whatever consequences there may be as a result of these remarks.

----------


## Rudeman

> Since you don't call yourself a libertarian and therefore never have to deal with these stereotypes I can understand that you would feel differently about it. I just wish that Rand supporters could see this from the libertarians' point of view. Since most of you either can't or won't, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree and live with whatever consequences there may be as a result of these remarks.


Personally I prefer not to label myself because I understand there are negative stereotypes that I don't want to be associated with and would much rather be judged on my own views and not by the views of others.

IMO when you choose to label yourself then you're sort of forced to defend your label, and that results in attacking those who you don't think represents your label appropriately (Glenn Beck, Koch brothers, Libertarian Party etc.).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not sure why it would matter. I almost agree with Ron on everything but I wouldn't call myself a libertarian. I even voted for GJ and there's a lot that I don't agree with him on (a lot more than Rand).
> 
> I really don't care what Ron, Rand or anyone else wants to label themselves as (or if they simply refuse to label themselves). What really matters to me is what they do. I mean how many phonies have called themselves libertarians? Does it really matter to you that they label themselves as a libertarian?





> Since you don't call yourself a libertarian and therefore never have to deal with these stereotypes I can understand that you would feel differently about it. I just wish that Rand supporters could see this from the libertarians' point of view. Since most of you either can't or won't, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree and live with whatever consequences there may be as a result of these remarks.





> Personally I prefer not to label myself because I understand there are negative stereotypes that I don't want to be associated with and would much rather be judged on my own views and not by the views of others.
> 
> IMO when you choose to label yourself then you're sort of forced to defend your label, and that results in attacking those who you don't think represents your label appropriately (Glenn Beck, Koch brothers, Libertarian Party etc.).


There's truth to that.  Sometimes I prefer the constitution party over the LP anyway depending on the candidates.  Glenn Beck is a joke along with anyone else who had a problem with Ron Paul's heroic "Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword" tweet.  

But yeah, I get your point.  Its still annoying that there's a stereotype though.  I do call myself a libertarian though.  I can't think of another term that really works.  "Constitutionalist" is not a complete description for me, even though I do argue based on the Constitution a lot of the time, I'd much rather scrap it for the Articles or something else that makes govt even smaller.

----------


## erowe1

> I'd be shocked that Ron Paul said he wasn't a libertarian.  "Libertarian" wasn't really a term he used, at least not particularly often, but he was clearly advocating libertarian political views.  Granted, not  absolute 100% pure libertarianism (See his comment about defaming people during the SC "Legalize heroin speech"), and definitely coming from a constitutional state's rights perspective, but he clearly was a libertarian, or at least predominately so.


I don't think Ron Paul advocates everyone running around naked smoking pot.

----------


## Christian Liberty

He doesn't.  But he never would have made a comment implying that libertarians advocate that.

If Rand really said this exactly the way the article and your sig suggests, that was the implication.  I know Rand doesn't really believe that, but that was the implication.  Its like Cajuncocoa's sarcastic sig... "I'm not a Republican, I don't advocate putting Israel first and going to war everywhere."  No, it doesn't outright state that all Republicans support that, but the implication is there.  The same is true for Rand's statement.  

That doesn't necessarily mean that its wrong to do... if the stereotype is accurate.  If you said "I'm not a Neo-Nazi, I don't hate Jewish people" there would be nothing wrong with that at all, since that "Stereotype" about Neo-Nazis is generally correct.  Or, "I'm not a libertarian, I don't think it should be legal to shoot heroin."   Well, if you don't support legalizing heroin, you're a nutcase along with  90% of the population, but the "Stereotype" that libertarians support legalizing heroin would be correct, so there's nothing wrong with the statement.
(@Cajuncocoa- I am well aware that you only have that sig to make a point that what Rand said wasn't acceptable.)

----------


## Peace Piper

Turns out Rand dances after all...

*Rand Paul Embraces Israel*
Rand Paul is describing an episode from his trip to Israel in January: I went to a Shabbat, he tells me, it was the first time Ive ever done that, and I had a wonderful time. I went to the yeshiva, and all the young men were singing and dancing, *they had me dancing around the table*. I hope I was singing something that was fine  it was all in Hebrew, so I had no idea what I was singing.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...aul-and-israel
Rand Paul: Proof the apple sometimes falls far away
Here's a message for those that expect all Ron supporters to just Roll Over

----------


## cajuncocoa

> but do you have the full continuous quote to be able to determine that?  Rand was quoted with two sets of quotation marks, so the sentences he spoke could have been minutes apart.





> I contacted his office via email to ask this question.  Will post it here if I get a response. I really hope you're right, jct74.



I promised to post the response I received from Rand's office....but I have to say that this falls into the category of "when is a response not really a response".  

I specifically asked about the two quoted sentences that are the topic of this thread:  Im not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,  and  Im not a libertarian. Im a libertarian Republican. Im a constitutional conservative.

I specifically asked for clarification as to whether he was suggesting this is stereotypical of libertarians as it implies; I asked if the two quotes came back-to-back and if there is any chance the quotes are taken out of context.  

This is what Rand's office sent in reply:




> Dear ----------,
> 
> Thank you for contacting me regarding the legalization of marijuana. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.
> 
> The Ending Federal Prohibition on Marijuana Act of 2013 (H.R. 499) would amend the Controlled Substances Act to remove marijuana from the list of substances illegal under the act, except that it would remain illegal to ship or transport marijuana to states or localities where it remains illegal. It would also require the establishment a licensing process to create permits for the manufacture, import and sale of marijuana. Finally, H.R. 499 would establish a regulatory process for marijuana similar to that of alcohol, transferring responsibility for enforcement of marijuana-related laws from the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which the legislation would rename as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, Firearms and Explosives.
> 
> H.R. 499 was introduced on Feb. 5, 2013, and referred to several House committees with jurisdiction over the production and sale of marijuana, including the House Committees on the Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Natural Resources, and Agriculture. It currently awaits further consideration. Please be assured I will keep your thoughts in mind should this or similar legislation come before me in the Senate for debate or vote.
> 
> Once more, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance in the future. I look forward to hearing from you again.
> ...

----------


## Warlord

Why does he need to clarify anything ?

He does not advocate what he says and neither do I and i'm a libertarian and have been since aged 19. 

He's also a KY senator so unless a constituent you shouldn't really expect anything.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Why does he need to clarify anything ?
> 
> He does not advocate what he says and neither do I and i'm a libertarian and have been since aged 19. 
> 
> He's also a KY senator so unless a constituent you shouldn't really expect anything.


He's also a presidential candidate (why else would he have been in Iowa?)

----------


## HigherVision

> Because he stereotyped me as a nudist pothead.  I am a Libertarian, and I have never used nor advocated the use of marijuana, nor have I ever gone out in public naked, or advocated that anyone else do so, yet He dismissed me in a public setting as advocating nudity and marijuana use, as if my financial and activist support of his campaign is useless.


But he felt he had to in order to win over the right wing fascists, which *will* be necessary if he wants to win the presidency. See I used to get all pissed off at stuff like this too, but when you realize that the average person is your political enemy and that you basically have to trick them in order to win, it gets easier to not be offended. There's no utopian 'awakening' coming any time soon that anarcho-libertarians like to talk about. "Just educate people about liberty and how harmful the state is and they'll all become libertarians/anarchists like us!" Unfortunately that's *not* likely to happen. Sheeple gonna sheeple whether we like it or not so you have to beat them at their own game. We're smarter than them anyway.

----------


## phill4paul

> Why does he need to clarify anything ?
> 
> He does not advocate what he says and neither do I and i'm a libertarian and have been since aged 19. 
> 
> *He's also a KY senator so unless a constituent you shouldn't really expect anything.*


  So nobody from out of state should bother to comment on KY hemp legislature? Nobody out of state should fund his senatorial seat? Last I heard he is a 2016 aspirationista. 
  What he says and how he says it matters. If his goal is to progress from KY senate.

----------


## talkingpointes

> But he felt he had to in order to win over the right wing fascists, which *will* be necessary if he wants to win the presidency. See I used to get all pissed off at stuff like this too, but when you realize that the average person is your political enemy and that you basically have to trick them in order to win, it gets easier to not be offended. There's no utopian 'awakening' coming any time soon that anarcho-libertarians like to talk about. "Just educate people about liberty and how harmful the state is and they'll all become libertarians/anarchists like us!" Unfortunately that's *not* likely to happen. Sheeple gonna sheeple whether we like it or not so you have to beat them at their own game. We're smarter than them anyway.


In other words you feel superior to your enemies who are really just challenging ideologies. How are you winning over someone with something that they will never think about or internalize, so you misrepresent yourself? Certainly that sounds good on paper, but the strategy relies on the premise that person never waking up to situation a. (the world/politics) b. (you).

You woke up for some reason and were not born this way in those regards, what makes you so different then everyone else?

----------


## HigherVision

> In other words you feel superior to your enemies who are really just challenging ideologies. How are you winning over someone with something that they will never think about or internalize, so you misrepresent yourself? Certainly that sounds good on paper, but the strategy relies on the premise that person never waking up to situation a. (the world/politics) b. (you).
> 
> You woke up for some reason and were not born this way in those regards, what makes you so different then everyone else?


I feel superior to people who want to use force against other people, yeah. Same way I feel superior to murderers and rapists, albeit to a lesser extent. If they do ever wake up and become full libertarians, all the better. I just don't see it happening. As to why I don't know.

----------


## FrankRep

> I feel superior to people who want to use force against other people, yeah. Same way I feel superior to murderers and rapists, albeit to a lesser extent. If they do ever wake up and become full libertarians, all the better. I just don't see it happening. As to why I don't know.


What's a full Libertarian? Are anarchists "full" Libertarians?

----------


## erowe1

> What's a full Libertarian? Are anarchists "full" Libertarians?


It depends on what sense of the word "libertarian" you're using.

In the naked drug using sense, a full libertarian would be someone who wants a complete permanent ban of all clothing and mandatory permanent bath salt highs for all people.

----------


## HigherVision

> What's a full Libertarian? Are anarchists "full" Libertarians?


Yes anarcho-capitalism is complete libertarianism as it advocates total adherence to the non-aggression axiom.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It depends on what sense of the word "libertarian" you're using.
> 
> In the naked drug using sense, a full libertarian would be someone who wants a complete permanent ban of all clothing and mandatory permanent bath salt highs for all people.


Mandating the actions of other people is antithetical to libertarianism.  I wouldn't mandate how other people dress (or whether they choose to get dressed at all). Live and let live ... in peace.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Turns out Rand dances after all...
> 
> *Rand Paul Embraces Israel*
> Rand Paul is describing an episode from his trip to Israel in January: “I went to a Shabbat,” he tells me, “it was the first time I’ve ever done that, and I had a wonderful time. I went to the yeshiva, and all the young men were singing and dancing, *they had me dancing around the table*. I hope I was singing something that was fine — it was all in Hebrew, so I had no idea what I was singing.”
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...aul-and-israel
> Rand Paul: Proof the apple sometimes falls far away
> Here's a message for those that expect all Ron supporters to just Roll Over




Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel link

----------


## erowe1

> So nobody from out of state should bother to comment on KY hemp legislature? Nobody out of state should fund his senatorial seat? Last I heard he is a 2016 aspirationista. 
>   What he says and how he says it matters. If his goal is to progress from KY senate.


It's not just that. But the question is too silly to waste time on. Nobody really cares. It's just a way of manufacturing drama on a web forum.

----------


## erowe1

> Mandating the actions of other people is antithetical to libertarianism.  I wouldn't mandate how other people dress (or whether they choose to get dressed at all). Live and let live ... in peace.


Again, like I said in what you just quoted, that depends on what sense of the word "libertarian" you're using.

----------


## Korey Kaczynski

> http://libertycrier.com/politics/ran...and-smoke-pot/
> 
> Jeez, Rand, way to throw us under the bus...
> 
> 
> Rand Paul: Im Not A Libertarian  Im Not Advocating Everyone Run Around With No Clothes On And Smoke Pot
> 
> May 14, 2013
> 
> ...


Late to the bus, but everyone should have known that Rand is a conservative with libertarian leanings, NOT a libertarian. 

Libertarians have repeatedly shot themselves in the foot with name branding. Hell, the stupid rEVOLultion $#@! was started by libertarians in New Hampshire, from what I remember, and that sort of thing is silly leftist tactics. Libertarians have never really learned.

Nor is he throwing anybody under the bus, as he readily states he is a "libertarian Republican (and CC)."  He is simply paraphrasing that he's not what people think libertarians are.

----------


## TheTexan

> Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel link


I don't see anything in that article where Ron says he "supports Israel."  He only says that we should be friends, trading partners, and stay out of their business - the same thing he says for every country.

If Dr. Paul has said anything more than that in regards to his "support", I would be truly disappointed.  Israel is a murderous apartheid state, and to "support" that... is, well.. disturbing.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

"BATMF"

I thought I heard it all. That's a good one.

A literal laugh out loud.

----------

