# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  Is Rand Paul Going Neocon on Iran?

## Cap

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_3784998.html
What a difference a year makes.
Last Friday, I received an email from Rand Paul's office. He was, ostensibly, responding to my letter urging the Senate to oppose a new resolution that would call for the U.S. to enforce sanctions and provide economic, political, and military support if Israel attacked Iran. I opened it assuming that I'd read an email about how Senator Paul remained committed to standing strong against the push for war and sanctions. Boy was I wrong.
Ten months after sitting with what I assumed was a sympathetic ear, I read the following:


> _Iran continues to pose a threat to the region and the world as it continues nuclear development in the face of international sanctions and pressure to halt this aggressive behavior. Though a nuclear Iran would be a threat on the global scale, there is also concern that a nuclear Iran would aggressively target our ally Israel._
> _The United States and Israel have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unifies us across many thousands of miles and calls on us to work together toward peace and prosperity. This peace is not only between our two nations, but also our neighbors._
> _In February 2013, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced S.Res.65, a Senate resolution stating it is the sense of Congress that the United States and international organizations should continue the enforcement of sanctions against Iran. In addition, S.Res.65 reiterates the policy of the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and our continued support of our ally Israel._
> _I supported S.Res.65, which passed both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate unanimously._


Really Rand? Really? If true, very very troubling.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

Is Rand Paul Going Neocon on Iran?

No

----------


## tsai3904

His vote on S. Res. 65 was discussed in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...n-on-Wednesday

----------


## green73

Careful, Cap. Only positive Rand comments allowed in this forum.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_3784998.html
> _Iran continues to pose a threat to the region and the world as it  continues nuclear development in the face of international sanctions and  pressure to halt this aggressive behavior. Though a nuclear Iran would  be a threat on the global scale, there is also concern that a nuclear  Iran would aggressively target our ally Israel._
> 
> _The United States and Israel have a special relationship. With our  shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have  formed a bond that unifies us across many thousands of miles and calls  on us to work together toward peace and prosperity_.


This is what happens when you start pandering to the Evangelicals: you end up saying idiotic things such as this.

If anything this is proof that Rand Paul is actually running in 2016. I doubt he believes any of this crap.

----------


## rich34

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...b_3784998.html
> What a difference a year makes.
> Last Friday, I received an email from Rand Paul's office. He was, ostensibly, responding to my letter urging the Senate to oppose a new resolution that would call for the U.S. to enforce sanctions and provide economic, political, and military support if Israel attacked Iran. I opened it assuming that I'd read an email about how Senator Paul remained committed to standing strong against the push for war and sanctions. Boy was I wrong.
> Ten months after sitting with what I assumed was a sympathetic ear, I read the following:
> 
> Really Rand? Really? If true, very veRt troubling.


Dude, Rand's in it to win it!  It's stupid crap like this that gave ammo to the other side.  This killed Ron's chances, Rand knows he can't give em easy cannon fodder..

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Dude, Rand's in it to win it!  It's stupid crap like this that gave ammo to the other side.  This killed Ron's chances, Rand knows he can't give em easy cannon fodder..


Eventually he will have to stand up to these idiots, or "we" will have won *nothing*.

----------


## Cowlesy

> Careful, Cap. Only positive Rand comments allowed in this forum.


That's bull$#@!. He gets $#@! on all the time on the forum.  The $#@!ters just don't like it when it gets sent back at themselves.

There are a lot of Rand supporters who don't like some of these views and the language.  But what are you going to do.  You can not vote.  Or you can keep trying to influence him in our direction because he's far and away better than any potential presidential candidate with a legitimate shot at capturing the Boobus Americanus vote.  Which, sadly, you *MUST* win to become President of 'Murica.

----------


## jtstellar

> *He goes on to mention that he got language included in the resolution stating that it does not authorize war.* But I admittedly had to re-read the letter a few times. Here was a letter from Sen. Rand Paul, a supposed anti-sanctions, anti-war isolationist, that was basically doing a complete 180 degree turn away from what Paul's been advocating since before his election.


and where was the part where he talks about this?

why aren't you posting his exact words?  why a paraphrase?  we get to see you quote the most controversial preface yet we are forced to hear you paraphrase the entire important rest?  rand is known for starting his sentence looking like he is sympathetic initially to a bad idea before he flips on it.. so you quote the start of his letter, then omit everything else?  this is to even assume not an aide wrote this letter and rand, known for not replying to nobodies, did a personally written letter to this chubby reporter.  seriously, who is this intentional idiot?

and what's left?

you state you stand with israel and you want to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapon, then in the next sentence you ban yourself from going to war.  so where is the teeth?  you don't see where this is going?  you could argue that congress don't declare war anyways, well, that's why we need to see the $#@!ing letter, to see whether rand was explicitly prohibiting any aggressive military action or simply a declaration by congress that isn't officially so until announced.  It should have been the letter's most important part, where rand explains the mechanism to prevent us' plunging into war over the sanction, and the part which this purposeful moron omitted because he deems his audience too stupid to be entertained with nuance..  just a side note, the flow of this letter doesn't even feel like rand's writing




> Careful, Cap. Only positive Rand comments allowed in this forum.


and where were you on positive rand paul moments?  

hide in a corner snickering and wait for your chances?  that flag kinda suits you in a negative way, if true

----------


## 69360

You mean the Senator that wants to end aid to Israel? 

He has to go with the flow on this or his primary campaign would end. That's just the way it is. 

I'm more concerned about domestic issues anyway.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> and where were you on positive rand paul moments?  
> 
> hide in a corner snickering and wait for your chances?  that flag kinda suits you in a negative way, if true


I think green's comment went right over your head.

----------


## lakerssuck92

How quickly some people forget. 




He was the only no vote on that resolution.

----------


## green73

> That's bull$#@!. He gets $#@! on all the time on the forum.  The $#@!ters just don't like it when it gets sent back at themselves.
> 
> There are a lot of Rand supporters who don't like some of these views and the language.  But what are you going to do.  You can not vote.  Or you can keep trying to influence him in our direction because he's far and away better than any potential presidential candidate with a legitimate shot at capturing the Boobus Americanus vote.  Which, sadly, you *MUST* win to become President of 'Murica.


I thought there was a dictate put out that there shall be no criticism of Rand in the Rand Paul Forum. I just saw a guy get banned after being critical. I figured it was being imposed.

----------


## green73

> and where were you on positive rand paul moments?  
> 
> hide in a corner snickering and wait for your chances?  that flag kinda suits you in a negative way, if true


I was on board during the filibuster




> I think green's comment went right over your head.


Come on, Cajun, jt is one of our most brilliant thinkers.

----------


## jtstellar

> *He goes on to mention that he got language included in the resolution stating that it does not authorize war.* But I admittedly had to re-read the letter a few times. Here was a letter from Sen. Rand Paul, a supposed anti-sanctions, anti-war isolationist, that was basically doing a complete 180 degree turn away from what Paul's been advocating since before his election.


and where was the part where he talks about this?

why aren't you posting his exact words?  why a paraphrase?  we get to see you quote the most controversial preface yet we are forced to hear you paraphrase the entire important rest?  rand is known for starting his sentence looking like he is sympathetic initially to a bad idea before he flips on it.. so you quote the start of his letter, then omit everything else?  this is to even assume not an aide wrote this letter and rand, known for not replying to nobodies, did a personally written letter to this chubby reporter.  seriously, who is this intentional idiot?

and what's left?

you state you stand with israel and you want to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapon, then in the next sentence you ban yourself from going to war.  so where is the teeth?  you don't see where this is going?  you could argue that congress don't declare war anyways, well, that's why we need to see the $#@!ing letter, to see whether rand was explicitly prohibiting any aggressive military action or simply a declaration by congress that isn't officially so until announced.  It should have been the letter's most important part, where rand explains the mechanism to prevent us' plunging into war over the sanction, and the part which this purposeful moron omitted because he deems his audience too stupid to be entertained with nuance.  or those stupid enough to repost, an article with 3 responses on huffingtonpost, for that matter.  you are now dumber than liberals, because even they aren't interested.  

reposted first part because trolls spammed and buried responses too quick.  and just a side note, the letter's style doesn't even feel like rand's writing.

----------


## Smitty

The liberty movement became a tangible force *only* because of Ron Paul's decades of relentless straight talk.

Political ambiguity will do nothing to further the cause of liberty.

Rand has contributed very little other than confusion.

----------


## Brett85

The guy who wrote this article was simply misinformed about Rand's position on sanctions.  Rand has never been opposed to sanctions; he's always supported them.  This isn't some kind of flip flop.  I disagree with Rand on this issue and have been very critical of his votes on this particular issue.  However, I have to admit that he's taken a consistent position and hasn't flip flopped.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Going neocon?  No, he's been there for a while, sadly.

These are the kind of things the liberty movement has to just swallow with Rand.  Some won't swallow it though.

----------


## Brett85

> Going neocon?  No, he's been there for a while, sadly.
> 
> These are the kind of things the liberty movement has to just swallow with Rand.  Some won't swallow it though.


I think that Rand is our best option in 2016, but I do wish that we could get a U.S Senator who was even better than Rand on foreign policy issues, who was closer to Ron's foreign policy views.

----------


## jtstellar

> The guy who wrote this article was simply misinformed about Rand's position on sanctions.  Rand has never been opposed to sanctions; he's always supported them.  This isn't some kind of flip flop.  I disagree with Rand on this issue and have been very critical of his votes on this particular issue.  However, I have to admit that he's taken a consistent position and hasn't flip flopped.


i'm betting my money on rand knowing what he's doing, and i won't regret it

----------


## green73

> i'm betting my money on rand knowing what he's doing, and i won't regret it


Can't argue with that. 

Btw, do you type with only one hand?

----------


## Brett85

It sounds like the person who wrote this article was confused since one of Rand's staffers spoke out against sanctions against Iran, and the writer incorrectly assumed that Rand's position was exactly the same as this staffer's position.  Rand probably has a lot of staffers who are closer to Ron's foreign policy views and more non interventionist than Rand.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Some won't swallow it though.


To those I say...

----------


## Smitty

I think I'll stay.

I've been here since 2007.

You're not the first confrontational newby that's come and gone during that period.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I think I'll stay.
> 
> I've been here since 2007.
> 
> You're not the first confrontational newby that's come and gone during that period.


I've been at this since 1964.  You are not the first person that doesn't know how to spell newbie.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> To those I say...


My guess is that the majority of Ron Paulians will go with Rand, but what you want to do if you are a candidate is to generate interest and momentum in your campaign.  Rand will not do this by being safe or talking about war with Iran or spouting standard Republican talking points.

If Rand wants to kill interest in his campaign, he will continue to do things like this that are (I believe) morally wrong, fiscally wrong, and wrong policy-wise.

----------


## Smitty

> I've been at this since 1964.  .


That explains it.

----------


## Cowlesy

> I thought there was a dictate put out that there shall be no criticism of Rand in the Rand Paul Forum. I just saw a guy get banned after being critical. I figured it was being imposed.


I haven't seen that, but maybe I am wrong.  I only visit the Rand forum specifically every few days.  Perhaps some folks troll the forum because he's not Ron Paul and they are afraid that we don't all know that besides the fact WE HEAR IT EVERY DAMN DAY.

That said, there is a difference between criticism and just sniping him.  I criticize him occasionally, although I try to do it to his face by being active in helping with campaign stuff instead of venting on here which is too easy.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> That explains it.


Yes it does.  I have seen enough that I don't give a $#@! and I call it like I see it.  Rand is a good guy, best chance our side has had in a long time at the big prize.  He's also realistic, which gets the libertarian idealists panties all in a bunch.

----------


## Brett85

I have to admit that the way this letter is written, it could've been written by Lindsey Graham, John McCain, or any other neoconservative.  I'm not a "Rand hater" and am going to support him for President in 2016, but this kind of stuff is still disappointing when I read it.  The reason why I became a Ron Paul supporter in 2008 was because of his opposition to war and support for a non interventionist foreign policy.

----------


## Smitty

> Yes it does.  I have seen enough that I don't give a $#@! and I call it like I see it.  Rand is a good guy, best chance our side has had in a long time at the big prize.  He's also realistic, which gets the libertarian idealists panties all in a bunch.


A: I give a $#@!.

B: I'm realistic.

C: I'm a libertarian.

D: I don't wear panties.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I have to admit that the way this letter is written, it could've been written by Lindsey Graham, John McCain, or any other neoconservative.  I'm not a "Rand hater" and am going to support him for President in 2016, but this kind of stuff is still disappointing when I read it.  The reason why I became a Ron Paul supporter in 2008 was because of his opposition to war and support for a non interventionist foreign policy.


There is a reason for the difference.  Ron could be a strict Jeffersonian: he was in the House, he was in a safe seat, and his political ambitions were virtually non-existent (remember he was essentially drafted to run in 08). Rand is in the Senate: he is faced with more difficult votes, has more constituents to answer to and has higher aspirations than his father did.  While sanctions don't follow the textbook hardcore Jeffersonian path, they are not the type of thing that puts you so far off the reservation you are a Progressive Wilsonian.

----------


## green73

> My guess is that the majority of Ron Paulians will go with Rand, but what you want to do if you are a candidate is to generate interest and momentum in your campaign.  Rand will not do this by being safe or talking about war with Iran or spouting standard Republican talking points.
> 
> If Rand wants to kill interest in his campaign, he will continue to do things like this that are (I believe) morally wrong, fiscally wrong, and wrong policy-wise.


Hey man, don't be such a downer. We've got finagle the dumb boobs. The truth simply doesn't work. Lies are the way to go...

Btw, I wonder if Rand really is lying or he means what he says. Either way it's a big $#@! sandwich.

----------


## fr33

It sux that I have to expect that Rand is lying sometimes.

----------


## presence

> It sux that I have to expect that Rand is lying sometimes.


yeah its getting old and my teeth are starting to hurt from it

----------


## Brett85

> There is a reason for the difference.  Ron could be a strict Jeffersonian: he was in the House, he was in a safe seat, and his political ambitions were virtually non-existent (remember he was essentially drafted to run in 08). Rand is in the Senate: he is faced with more difficult votes, has more constituents to answer to and has higher aspirations than his father did.  While sanctions don't follow the textbook hardcore Jeffersonian path, they are not the type of thing that puts you so far off the reservation you are a Progressive Wilsonian.


Yeah, I see what you're saying.  But, in my opinion there are more problems with this letter than just support for sanctions.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

> Is Rand Paul Going Neocon on Iran?
> 
> No


I remember a journalist once saying: "if the headline is in the form of a question, the answer is always 'no'".

That's how I'm treating this thread and its title.

----------


## axiomata

Perhaps an aid sent out the "pander to Israel defense hawks" form letter by accident.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Dude, Rand's in it to win it!  It's stupid crap like this that gave ammo to the other side.  This killed Ron's chances, Rand knows he can't give em easy cannon fodder..


Non-interventionism isn't stupid. It's one of the few aspects of the Liberty movement that has major crossover appeal. You know what stupid is, and may well kill Rand's chances in the general election? His 100% pro-life platform.

----------


## Cap

I figured this would stir up a $#@! storm, however this needs to come out. I personally have some serious thinking to do concerning Rand. Being principled is utmost in my book. It was because of that very principle that drew me as well as others to Ron. For all you good intentioned people saying that he is just playing the game and don't believe half of his pandering to the establishment, I say really...who is being duped? Are you ready to throw your principles out the the window and do you really want to win without principle?

I come to this forum because I believe in the message Ron put forth. I believe in liberty, and I believe most of you do as well.

Having said that, if however, Rand means exactly what he says, then I don't want any part of it. Seriously, do you want blood on your hands? This is something we are going to have to look back on and make an assessment of our core values. This rhetoric against Iran is very disturbing.

----------


## Brett85

> Non-interventionism isn't stupid. It's one of the few aspects of the Liberty movement that has major crossover appeal. You know what stupid is, and may well kill Rand's chances in the general election? His 100% pro-life platform.


Good grief, you have to bring up that issue and bash social conservatives in every single thread you post in, even if the topic has absolutely nothing to do with abortion or social conservatism.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I figured this would stir up a $#@! storm, however this needs to come out. I personally have some serious thinking to do concerning Rand. Being principled is utmost in my book. It was because of that very principle that drew me as well as others to Ron. For all you good intentioned people saying that he is just playing the game and don't believe half of his pandering to the establishment, I say really...who is being duped? Are you ready to throw your principles out the the window and do you really want to win without principle?
> 
> I come to this forum because I believe in the message Ron put forth. I believe in liberty, and I believe most of you do as well.
> 
> Having said that, if however, Rand means exactly what he says, then I don't want any part of it. Seriously, do you want blood on your hands? This is something we are going to have to look back on and make an assessment of our core values. This rhetoric against Iran is very disturbing.


Honestly, I don't think Rand is pandering. I don't think he is being coy in any way. I think this is exactly the FP position he holds to on this particular issue.  I'm fine with it. Rand (or any politician) does not have to be 100% in line with my viewpoint on every single issue, statement, position and/or vote in order to merit my support.

----------


## Cap

> Honestly, I don't think Rand is pandering. I don't think he is being coy in any way. I think this is exactly the FP position he holds to on this particular issue.  I'm fine with it. Rand (or any politician) does not have to be 100% in line with my viewpoint on every single issue, statement, position and/or vote in order to merit my support.


I respect your honesty. However, there has been enough blood spilled and I can't support spilling any more.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> That's bull$#@!. He gets $#@! on all the time on the forum.  The $#@!ters just don't like it when it gets sent back at themselves.
> 
> There are a lot of Rand supporters who don't like some of these views and the language.  But what are you going to do.  You can not vote.  Or *you can keep trying to influence him in our direction* because he's far and away better than any potential presidential candidate with a legitimate shot at capturing the Boobus Americanus vote.  Which, sadly, you *MUST* win to become President of 'Murica.


The only way I know to influence a politician is the threat of withholding a vote for him, and campaigning against his policies when they don't fit.
And I do have a problem with bad FP.  It gets people killed if a war, and if a sanction it affects quality of life.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I respect your honesty. However, there has been enough blood spilled and I can't support spilling any more.


And the alternatives: Rubio, Christie, Clinton, et al - you'll have tons more blood spilled, pitiful economic policy, more infringements of civil liberties, etc, etc, etc.

Look I get it, some people want the whole ball of wax or nothing.  But honestly, you are going to end up with nothing that way.  To each his own though I suppose.

----------


## MichaelDavis

Good. This is a country that desires conflict with the United States and other likeminded democracies. They are not civilized and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. You cannot defend this anti-christitan, anti-jewish dictatorial government.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-attack.html
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran...calls-holy-war
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Lates...ar-with-Israel

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Good. This is a country that desires conflict with the United States and other likeminded democracies. They are not civilized and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. You cannot defend this anti-christitan, anti-jewish dictatorial government.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-attack.html
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran...calls-holy-war
> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Lates...ar-with-Israel


Your opinion, as well as some others. I would almost neg rep that, but I'll leave you to your own hate.

It remains that we should not be sanctioning them, nor starting a war, nor supporting a preemptive war against them.

----------


## Smitty

Fox News alert.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Good. This is a country that desires conflict with the United States and other likeminded democracies. They are not civilized and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. You cannot defend this anti-christitan, anti-jewish dictatorial government.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-attack.html
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran...calls-holy-war
> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Lates...ar-with-Israel


Doesn't it seem that Israel and the US wants conflict with Iran?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Good. This is a country that desires conflict with the United States and other likeminded democracies. They are not civilized and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. You cannot defend this anti-christitan, anti-jewish dictatorial government.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-attack.html
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran...calls-holy-war
> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Lates...ar-with-Israel


They have not attacked the U.S., nor is there an imminent threat, therefore the U.S. government should not be the aggressor.

----------


## rich34

Wow, first we get the Ted Cruz $#@! being stirred in Iowa, now we have this?  I'm guessing the same ones bashing Rand over this are supporters of Ted, forgetting the fact that Teddy boy is way more hawkish than Rand...  Divide n conquer baby, man they are masters at it, this movement must not fall for this bull$#@!..  Graham brought that resolution up right at the time Rand was getting ready to take off, he did this to get Rand to stumble, didn't work and look where Rand is now!  Besides just wait till Ron starts hitting the campaign trail to shore up the base while Rand is making his own, with those two factions united it would be tough for Reagan to beat him..  Stay united folks, don't fall for their tricks n snares...

----------


## fr33

> I'm guessing the same ones bashing Rand over this are supporters of Ted


You couldn't be more wrong about that.

----------


## green73

> Your opinion, as well as some others. I would almost neg rep that, but I'll leave you to your own hate.
> 
> It remains that we should not be sanctioning them, nor starting a war, nor supporting a preemptive war against them.


They're evil! EVIL! Clyde don't you get it? Look at how many countries they've invaded in the last 200 years.

----------


## Smitty

Ted Cruz lost any possible support I may have developed for him about the 40th time he said "Israel" during his Chuck Hagel inquisition.

I'm not sure what to think about Rand at this point. But he's playing way too much politics for my taste.

I'm interested in liberty,...not political bull$#@!.

----------


## 69360

> Good. This is a country that desires conflict with the United States and other likeminded democracies. They are not civilized and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. You cannot defend this anti-christitan, anti-jewish dictatorial government.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-attack.html
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran...calls-holy-war
> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Lates...ar-with-Israel


I trust them with nukes. They don't want to die anymore that we do. They know what a counterstrike is.

There are 30,000 jews living in Iran and the ayatolla issued a fatwa that they are to be protected.

You really need to turn off fox news.

----------


## Carlybee

> It sux that I have to expect that Rand is lying sometimes.


Makes it really hard to justify to people you may be trying to recruit too..."Oh don't worry, it's just a little fib for political expediency".

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Good. This is a country that desires conflict with the United States and other likeminded democracies. They are not civilized and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. You cannot defend this anti-christitan, anti-jewish dictatorial government.






We have been $#@!ing around in Iran since the creation of Israel. The overthrowing of Mossaddegh and the installation of the Shah, for starters. Israel and the United States had a hand in creating and training the SAVAK. They were the Shah's secret police who instilled fear in the public. When the embassy was stormed a video made by the CIA for the SAVAK was uncovered. They were showing how to torture females specifically electroshock to their genitalia among other horrific techniques. This pissed off a lot of people.

We could fast forward to the scientists who have been targeted for assassination by the Mossad and CIA but between that time period, we were still heavily involved in the region. Creating dissent, funding disinformation and generally sticking our noses where they shouldn't have been. Iran was said to be a year away from heaving a nuclear bomb since 1984. Damn near thirty years that specific piece of warmongering horse$#@! has been being fed to the public. And even if they were... so what? Isarel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. Israel isn't a member of the IAEA nor have they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty as has Iran. And yet we continue the sanctions and the other aggressive actions of a bully for Israel. While simultaneously subsidizing Israel with billions of dollars yearly. Over $35,000 for every man, woman and child of Israel since 1948.

----------


## willwash

That's probably a standard form letter that the party whip makes all Senate Repubs send in response to anything about Iran.  I'd be surprised if Rand has even read it.

----------


## MichaelDavis

> I trust them with nukes. They don't want to die anymore that we do.


That was what we thought before Al-Qaeda flew planes into our building. Some muslim extrists believe that it is worth dying to kill "the scourge of the west". Your problem is believing that extremists use common sense. Many times they do not.

----------


## Carlybee

> And the alternatives: Rubio, Christie, Clinton, et al - you'll have tons more blood spilled, pitiful economic policy, more infringements of civil liberties, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> Look I get it, some people want the whole ball of wax or nothing.  But honestly, you are going to end up with nothing that way.  To each his own though I suppose.



You better be careful you don't end up with nothing, if all the Rand supporters who are non-interventionalists get a snoot full and the hawkish people turn to Ted Cruz. (should he run).

----------


## green73

> We have been $#@!ing around in Iran since the creation of Israel. The overthrowing of Mossaddegh and the installation of the Shah, for starters. Israel and the United States had a hand in creating and training the SAVAK. They were the Shah's secret police who instilled fear in the public. When the embassy was stormed a video made by the CIA for the SAVAK was uncovered. They were showing how to torture females specifically electroshock to their genitalia among other horrific techniques. This pissed off a lot of people.
> 
> We could fast forward to the scientists who have been targeted for assassination by the Mossad and CIA but between that time period, we were still heavily involved in the region. Creating dissent, funding disinformation and generally sticking our noses where they shouldn't have been. Iran was said to be a year away from heaving a nuclear bomb since 1984. Damn near thirty years that specific piece of warmongering horse$#@! has been being fed to the public. And even if they were... so what? Isarel has nuclear weapons. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. Israel isn't a member of the IAEA nor have they signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty as has Iran. And yet we continue the sanctions and the other aggressive actions of a bully for Israel. While simultaneously subsidizing Israel with billions of dollars yearly. Over $35,000 for every man, woman and child of Israel since 1948.


Not "we". You or I had nothing to do with those evils. Nor anything these monsters do.

----------


## mad cow

> How quickly some people forget. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was the only no vote on that resolution.


Excellent video,thanks for posting.

----------


## donnay

> It sux that I have to expect that Rand is lying sometimes.



That makes him just like the rest of the politicians we rail against.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Not "we". You or I had nothing to do with those evils. Nor anything these monsters do.


Very true.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I have to admit that the way this letter is written, it could've been written by Lindsey Graham, John McCain, or any other neoconservative.


My thoughts too.

----------


## MichaelDavis

> Your opinion, as well as some others. I would almost neg rep that, but I'll leave you to your own hate.
> 
> 
> It remains that we should not be sanctioning them, nor starting a war, nor supporting a preemptive war against them.


Don't worry, green73 did it for you, leaving the verry constructive comment "$#@! off and die". I am sorry that he has been so brainwashed by conspricy theorists and terrorsts that the people attempting to live in peace are vilified and treated as criminals.

----------


## TaftFan

> I think that Rand is our best option in 2016, but I do wish that we could get a U.S Senator who was even better than Rand on foreign policy issues, who was closer to Ron's foreign policy views.


This is what Rand needs politically as well. Cover from the right.

----------


## 69360

> That was what we thought before Al-Qaeda flew planes into our building. Some muslim extrists believe that it is worth dying to kill "the scourge of the west". Your problem is believing that extremists use common sense. Many times they do not.


Again with the fox news  reasoning. 

The Iranians have not attacked another country in over 200 years and are hardly extremists. But lets kill them all just in case. Murica hell ya!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That was what we thought before Al-Qaeda flew planes into our building. Some muslim extrists believe that it is worth dying to kill "the scourge of the west". Your problem is believing that extremists use common sense. Many times they do not.


Why did they do it?  Because of our decades of murder and intervention.  It's not religious extremism that makes them attack us, it's blowback.

----------


## TaftFan

> Why did they do it?  Because of our decades of murder and intervention.  It's not religious extremism that makes them attack us, it's blowback.


Its both.

----------


## MichaelDavis

> Again with the fox news  reasoning. 
> 
> The Iranians have not attacked another country in over 200 years and are hardly extremists. But lets kill them all just in case. Murica hell ya!


Where did I say we should "kill them just in case"? There are ways to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons than from just attacking them. Our sanctions have been working very well. When you have a country threatening to use nuclear weapons to attack the United States, they should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If Israel began threating the Unted States, I would be saying the same thing. This is about our national security, not interventionism.

http://rt.com/usa/iran-us-bases-israel-889/

----------


## Carlybee

> Where did I say we should "kill them just in case"? There are ways to prvent them from acquiring nuclear weapons than from just attacking them. Our sanctions have been working very well. When you have a country threatening to use nuclear weapons to attack the United States, they should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If Israel began threating the Unted States, I would be saying the same thing. This is about our national security, not interventionism.
> 
> http://rt.com/usa/iran-us-bases-israel-889/


Oh bullcrap, this ramping up to war with Iran has been going on for years.  Ron Paul warned that Congress was doing just that.  We gotta keep WAR, INC. in business to justify the kabillions of dollars we have spent on weaponry and drones.  We are so worried about Iran getting nukes, yet we sold nukes to Pakistan.  Who hate us.  Please go sell it somewhere else..that ship has sailed...it sailed when we justified going into Iraq so they wouldn't get weapons of mass destruction...and all we got were thousands of deaths and a t-shirt.   You sound like a neo-con.

----------


## green73

> Don't worry, green73 did it for you, leaving the verry constructive comment "$#@! off and die". I am sorry that he has been so brainwashed by conspricy theorists and terrorsts that the people attempting to live in peace are vilified and treated as criminals.


You're just brainwashed by public schooling and the media. Live in peace? Indeed.

----------


## presence

> Over $35,000 for every man, woman and child of Israel since 1948.



really?  cite?

----------


## MichaelDavis

> Oh bullcrap, this ramping up to war with Iran has been going on for years.  Ron Paul warned that Congress was doing just that.  We gotta keep WAR, INC. in business to justify the kabillions of dollars we have spent on weaponry and drones.  We are so worried about Iran getting nukes, yet we sold nukes to Pakistan.  Who hate us.  Please go sell it somewhere else..that ship has sailed...it sailed when we justified going into Iraq so they wouldn't get weapons of mass destruction...and all we got were thousands of deaths and a t-shirt.   You sound like a neo-con.


I am sorry you feel that way, but I am not. If Rand Paul wants to win, he needs to create a tent that is bigger than the 15% of the vote that Ron Paul received in 2012. Here are my I Side With results: http://www.isidewith.com/results/285257678. If you are going to shun a libertarian who agrees with you over 90% of the time, there is no chance there will ever be a libertarian president. Anti-Neocon is telling me to "go to http://forums.hannity.com/ they have a lot of like minded individuals" and green73 is saying that I should "$#@! off and die" because we disagree on one issue. When my 91% libertarian score is not considered pure enough, a large liberty coalition will never be formed.

----------


## Carlybee

> I am sorry you feel that way, but I am not. If Rand Paul wants to win, he needs to create a tent that is bigger than the 15% of the vote that Ron Paul received in 2012. Here are my I Side With results: http://www.isidewith.com/results/285257678. If you are going to shun a libertarian who agrees with you over 90% of the time, there is no chance there will ever be a libertarian president. Anti-Neocon is telling me to "go to http://forums.hannity.com/ they have a lot of like minded individuals" and green73 is saying that I should "$#@! off and die" because we disagree on one issue. When my 91% libertarian score is not considered pure enough, a large liberty coalition will never be formed.



Forgive me if I don't give much credence to someone who just signed up this month and seems intent on pushing an agenda that I disagree with.  If Rand plans on going full bore pro-Israel, pro-interventionalism, he will not get my support.  I lived through 8 years of neocon foreign policy and the last few years of Obama foreign policy...not supporting it. Period.  This IS my line in the sand as the Iraq war and the trumped up war on terror is why I became a RON Paul supporter in the first place...above every other issue.

----------


## green73

> I am sorry you feel that way, but I am not. If Rand Paul wants to win, he needs to create a tent that is bigger than the 15% of the vote that Ron Paul received in 2012. Here are my I Side With results: http://www.isidewith.com/results/285257678. If you are going to shun a libertarian who agrees with you over 90% of the time, there is no chance there will ever be a libertarian president. Anti-Neocon is telling me to "go to http://forums.hannity.com/ they have a lot of like minded individuals" and green73 is saying that I should "$#@! off and die" because we disagree on one issue. When my 91% libertarian score is not considered pure enough, a large liberty coalition will never be formed.


Your comment was repulsive. They are not civilized? They have been a civilization for thousands of years, you rube.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Going neocon?  No, he's been there for a while, sadly.
> 
> These are the kind of things the liberty movement has to just swallow with Rand.  Some won't swallow it though.


For curiosity, have you read his book from 2010?  "The Tea Party goes to Washington"?  He kind of misses it on social security in that book, but he gets the foreign policy dead on.

I don't think Rand is a neocon though.  That he agreed with a resolution by Lindsey isn't a problem in and of itself, we should never stoop to the level of our enemies when it comes to facts... if Adolf Hitler says "The sky is blue" he's still correct even if he is a mass murdering lunatic.  That said, the resolution in question sucked.

That said, I do hope that when war with Iran comes around, Rand will vote "no."  That will be the deciding factor for me.  If Rand actually votes to go to war with Iran, I will not support him.  Until then...

He's a little more hawkish in his attitude than I'd like, but I don't think he's Ted Cruz either.

----------


## green73

Get educated, jackass.




And maybe get a passport one day, and venture out in the world and learn something other than the lies you've been fed.

----------


## Cap

> I am sorry you feel that way, but I am not. If Rand Paul wants to win, he needs to create a tent that is bigger than the 15% of the vote that Ron Paul received in 2012. Here are my I Side With results: http://www.isidewith.com/results/285257678. If you are going to shun a libertarian who agrees with you over 90% of the time, there is no chance there will ever be a libertarian president. Anti-Neocon is telling me to "go to http://forums.hannity.com/ they have a lot of like minded individuals" and green73 is saying that I should "$#@! off and die" because we disagree on one issue. When my 91% libertarian score is not considered pure enough, a large liberty coalition will never be formed.


You like playing the victim don't you?

----------


## Christian Liberty

I assume you're talking to Rand and not to me?

I just have to wonder, why is Ron defending Rand so much if he really is a "neocon"?  True, Ron's endorsements are idiotic sometimes (See, Ted Cruz) but you don't see Ron constantly defending them.  I know Rand is Ron's son, and I know Ron cuts him some slack for that, but if Rand were really a neocon I feel like Ron would be calling him out in spite of that, rather than hinting at us that the two are similar politically.

Maybe there is some credence to the "Rand is lying" idea?

----------


## supermario21

Wasn't there a letter going around the Senate that was really hawkish against Iran and virtually the whole Senate signed it but Rand? I know he's not perfect on sanctions but Rand is on record favoring diplomacy and being against war.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Wasn't there a letter going around the Senate that was really hawkish against Iran and virtually the whole Senate signed it but Rand? I know he's not perfect on sanctions but Rand is on record favoring diplomacy and being against war.


Just playing devil's advocate, but what I worry about is that he's slowly losing his principles.  As I said, I'm reading his book from 2010 and he seemed much more like Ron Paul than he does now.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I am sorry you feel that way, but I am not. If Rand Paul wants to win, he needs to create a tent that is bigger than the 15% of the vote that Ron Paul received in 2012. Here are my I Side With results: http://www.isidewith.com/results/285257678. *If you are going to shun a libertarian who agrees with you over 90% of the time, there is no chance there will ever be a libertarian president*. Anti-Neocon is telling me to "go to http://forums.hannity.com/ they have a lot of like minded individuals" and green73 is saying that I should "$#@! off and die" because we disagree on one issue. When my 91% libertarian score is not considered pure enough, a large liberty coalition will never be formed.


In order to agree with me over 90% of the time, one would probably have to have 100% agreement on the issues that are most important to me.  Then I may be able to tolerate some disagreement on things of lesser importance.  You can't say "90% agreement" if the main area of disagreement is on an issue that is most important to me.

----------


## Brett85

I disagree with Michael Davis on the Iran issue, but let's not call him a "troll" or try to get him banned.  (I don't know if that specifically happened, but it seems like that has happened in the past when a new member has taken a dissenting position on an issue.)  He is most likely a supporter of Rand but is just more hawkish on foreign policy issues.  He's probably one of those people who "agreed with Ron Paul on everything except for foreign policy" and may have voted for him due to his stances on domestic issues that he agreed with.

----------


## supermario21

> Just playing devil's advocate, but what I worry about is that he's slowly losing his principles.  As I said, I'm reading his book from 2010 and he seemed much more like Ron Paul than he does now.


I have that book on my shelf, but I'm reading Government Bullies now. In some ways, it seems to me Rand has become more like Ron on issues like drones and what not. Maybe on Iran it seems different because he voted no on that 2012 sanctions bill but that resolution was also more hawkish it seemed. It just seems to me like Rand is playing it carefully with the rhetoric. Other than a sanctions vote here or there, he really hasn't done anything disappointing to me. I think Rand is just starting to find his comfort zone.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I disagree with Michael Davis on the Iran issue, but let's not call him a "troll" or try to get him banned.  (I don't know if that specifically happened, but it seems like that has happened in the past when a new member has taken a dissenting position on an issue.)  He is most likely a supporter of Rand but is just more hawkish on foreign policy issues.  He's probably one of those people who "agreed with Ron Paul on everything except for foreign policy" and may have voted for him due to his stances on domestic issues that he agreed with.


I didn't check what he said yet, but if he "Agrees with Ron Paul on everything except foreign policy" he needs to be educated.  This forum is a good place for it actually.

----------


## Brett85

> I didn't check what he said yet, but if he "Agrees with Ron Paul on everything except foreign policy" he needs to be educated.  This forum is a good place for it actually.


Yes, educated, just not condemned.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I assume you're talking to Rand and not to me?
> 
> I just have to wonder, why is Ron defending Rand so much if he really is a "neocon"?  True, Ron's endorsements are idiotic sometimes (See, Ted Cruz) but you don't see Ron constantly defending them.  I know Rand is Ron's son, and I know Ron cuts him some slack for that, but if Rand were really a neocon I feel like Ron would be calling him out in spite of that, rather than hinting at us that the two are similar politically.
> 
> Maybe there is some credence to the "Rand is lying" idea?


Yes.  I read it and I think the foreign policy chapter is every bit as good as anything Ron wrote.

----------


## Carlybee

> I disagree with Michael Davis on the Iran issue, but let's not call him a "troll" or try to get him banned.  (I don't know if that specifically happened, but it seems like that has happened in the past when a new member has taken a dissenting position on an issue.)  He is most likely a supporter of Rand but is just more hawkish on foreign policy issues.  He's probably one of those people who "agreed with Ron Paul on everything except for foreign policy" and may have voted for him due to his stances on domestic issues that he agreed with.


I wouldn't do that but he does seem to have an agenda to me.  Since when is being a hawk part of the Liberty movement?  So either he is totally naive or is here for a reason. If he "agreed with Ron Paul" on anything he should know that his supporters would not tolerate a move on Iran. Ron Paul has called sanctions an act of war..so I'm not sure how this guy thought he could come here and get very many to agree with him.  And anyone who does, I would say is not about Liberty up to and including Rand if he goes that route.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just playing devil's advocate, but what I worry about is that he's slowly losing his principles.  As I said, I'm reading his book from 2010 and he seemed much more like Ron Paul than he does now.


Rand was more like Ron in 2010.  That is why so many of us went all in for him.

----------


## AuH20

> I am sorry you feel that way, but I am not. If Rand Paul wants to win, he needs to create a tent that is bigger than the 15% of the vote that Ron Paul received in 2012. Here are my I Side With results: http://www.isidewith.com/results/285257678. If you are going to shun a libertarian who agrees with you over 90% of the time, there is no chance there will ever be a libertarian president. Anti-Neocon is telling me to "go to http://forums.hannity.com/ they have a lot of like minded individuals" and green73 is saying that I should "$#@! off and die" because we disagree on one issue. When my 91% libertarian score is not considered pure enough, a large liberty coalition will never be formed.


It's complete bull$#@!. Welcome. And hopefully you become more of a non-interventionist as you interact with others and absorb the materials that are regularly posted on this site. With that said, being a wholly blind pacifist probably isn't the right course of action either.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I am sorry you feel that way, but I am not. If Rand Paul wants to win, he needs to create a tent that is bigger than the 15% of the vote that Ron Paul received in 2012. Here are my I Side With results: http://www.isidewith.com/results/285257678. If you are going to shun a libertarian who agrees with you over 90% of the time, there is no chance there will ever be a libertarian president. Anti-Neocon is telling me to "go to http://forums.hannity.com/ they have a lot of like minded individuals" and green73 is saying that I should "$#@! off and die" because we disagree on one issue. When my 91% libertarian score is not considered pure enough, a large liberty coalition will never be formed.


Is that you Eric Dondero? Guess what, not every position is equal. I don't care if you agree with me on 95% of the issues, if that other 5% contradicts the rest of the 95%. War and the Military Industrial State not only erodes and destroys our civil liberties, but also our economic liberties, and ends up as the great State-centralizer, not to mention that ethically whenever War is invoked, it appears anything the State does, is A-OK. The sheep line up behind the proclamations of 'FOR YOUR SAFETY', and then you know all is lost. 

As Randolph Bourne said: War is the Health of the State.

Some issues are just much more important than others. Abolish the standing army and MIC. Repeal the '32, '64, and '86 gun and ordnance prohibition laws, and reconstitute the Nation of Rifleman. There's your safety AND liberty.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> really?  cite?





> The population of Israel, as defined by the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, was estimated in 2013 to be 8,051,200 people,




The cost of direct aid since 1949 is $14,299 for every man, woman and child.

The numbers are significantly higher than the $14,299 when interest and everything else is considered. I can't remember exactly where I saw the $35,000 figure though. I believe it was ifamericansonlyknew.org but I can't find it at the moment. If the number is off I don't believe it is by much and the misquote was unintentional. They added in the different trade arrangements and interest etc.

----------


## Brett85

> I wouldn't do that but he does seem to have an agenda to me.  Since when is being a hawk part of the Liberty movement?


He can be a supporter of Rand and even Ron without agreeing with them on every issue.  I don't agree with Ron on every issue, although I agree with him on this and his foreign policy in general.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> This is what Rand needs politically as well. Cover from the right.


It's a mistake for people to fall behind Rand. His whole M.O. is to work within established structures. If he's going to be successful we must keep pushing the goalposts further apart instead of contracting them.

----------


## Carlybee

> He can be a supporter of Rand and even Ron without agreeing with them on every issue.  I don't agree with Ron on every issue, although I agree with him on this and his foreign policy in general.


We all have our lines in the sand.  I didn't agree with Ron on every issue but on the ones that really mattered to me I did.  Foreign policy is my line in the sand.  For some people it's abortion or other issues.

----------


## Christian Liberty

BTW I just took, "isidewith" and here's how I compare to the LP...

http://www.isidewith.com/results/285264364:962379

There were some questions I had a hard time with.  There wasn't really a good answer for my stance on abortion, which is that it should be illegal but that it should be up to the states UNLESS THEY PASS A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.  I just went with "Let the states decide" because I know an amendment isn't going to happen, but in theory I would support it.  They nonetheless took my position as "Similar" to the LP, pro-choice stance.

Campaign finance, I voted that corporations shouldn't be allowed to donate, but I understand that and why many would disagree with me on that.  At the end of the day, the modern corporation is in many respects a creature of the state, and I really don't want money influencing our system more than it has to.  I understand that technically this violates the NAP, I'll take that tiny black spot on my record.  I can live with it.

Immigration, those questions were tricky for me considering my nuanced stance.  My view is essentially that anyone who isn't a national security threat (And that's more there for the sheep that will vote to kill our freedom everytime something happens than for me) should be allowed to come here, but anyone who didn't live here for at least 13 of their first 18 years shouldn't get citizenship period.  That option didn't really exist so I had to pick the options that were closest to mine.

Other than that, that test showed how... unlibertarian, the LP is.  Particularly on entitlements.  They absolutely suck on  the issue.  And a lot of other issues as well.  Just look at how my answers compare to there's.

----------


## Carlybee

> It's a mistake for people to fall behind Rand. His whole M.O. is to work within established structures. If he's going to be successful we must keep pushing the goalposts further apart instead of contracting them.



Yep, the original intent I thought was to take over the Republican Party, not become the Republican Party and everytime some of us have argued that, we have been told, "Oh don't worry, it's a marathon not a sprint, or it's a chess game, or it's just telling them what they want to hear, or it's just "the strategy""...none of which mean jack squat at the end of the day and you look up and find you have compromised your principles so much that they are irretrievable.  Sort of like "When you are up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember your original intention was to drain the swamp".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand was more like Ron in 2010.  That is why so many of us went all in for him.


The tough thing is, its hard to know for sure if he was corrupted to some extent or if he's just lying to the establishment right now.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's a mistake for people to fall behind Rand. His whole M.O. is to work within established structures. If he's going to be successful we must keep pushing the goalposts further apart instead of contracting them.


What you don't seem to get is "WE" aren't pushing anything.  The only pushing that is being done is by the people we have managed to get elected and Rand is a very important part of that.  What he has done to change the conversation in this country is nothing short of amazing.  To sit there and try to convince people not to support him is more than foolish.

----------


## Brett85

> BTW I just took, "isidewith" and here's how I compare to the LP...
> 
> http://www.isidewith.com/results/285264364:962379


Hmmm.  That link says that libertarians support teaching intelligent design in public schools.  Maybe JCDenton should read that.

Or, it says that "all theories should be taught in school."  That seems to be what it means.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There is a reason for the difference.  Ron could be a strict Jeffersonian: he was in the House, he was in a safe seat, and his political ambitions were virtually non-existent (remember he was essentially drafted to run in 08). Rand is in the Senate: he is faced with more difficult votes, has more constituents to answer to and has higher aspirations than his father did.  While sanctions don't follow the textbook hardcore Jeffersonian path, they are not the type of thing that puts you so far off the reservation you are a Progressive Wilsonian.


I can agree with the distinction you make here, but I still don't really like it.  That said, I'm still voting for Rand.  




> Good grief, you have to bring up that issue and bash social conservatives in every single thread you post in, even if the topic has absolutely nothing to do with abortion or social conservatism.


Not to mention that he's wrong.  They'll never be able to bash Rand for being "too pro-choice" like Santorum did to Ron.  Granted, anyone who believed Santorum has an IQ of under 20 anyway, but they won't even get the opportunity to do it to Rand.  And in the general election... who really cares?  I think constitutionally Rand's stance is off (You already know why I think that, we don't have to rehash it again) but politically it makes perfect sense.




> Good. This is a country that desires conflict with the United States and other likeminded democracies. They are not civilized and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. You cannot defend this anti-christitan, anti-jewish dictatorial government.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-attack.html
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/iran...calls-holy-war
> http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Lates...ar-with-Israel




Iran isn't the aggressor here at all.




> Doesn't it seem that Israel and the US wants conflict with Iran?


Yep.




> They have not attacked the U.S., nor is there an imminent threat, therefore the U.S. government should not be the aggressor.


Yep.



> They're evil! EVIL! Clyde don't you get it? Look at how many countries they've invaded in the last 200 years.


Probably dozens, if not hundreds.

Wait, I thought we were talking about the US.  My mistake




> That was what we thought before Al-Qaeda flew planes into our building. Some muslim extrists believe that it is worth dying to kill "the scourge of the west". Your problem is believing that extremists use common sense. Many times they do not.


The problem is that you think they did this in order to kill "the scourge of the west" rather than to tell us to screw off internationally.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Hmmm.  That link says that libertarians support teaching intelligent design in public schools.  Maybe JCDenton should read that.
> 
> Or, it says that "all theories should be taught in school."  That seems to be what it means.


I used to take that stance... back when I was dumb enough to support public schools.  The LP needs to stop being libertines and stop smoking the crack that they want to legalize

I honestly didn't know they were this bad.  I guess I've got nothing

Unless the link is wrong, which is possible.

(BTW: Its not that one issue that makes me mock them, but a whole host of issues.  Almost every issue I disagreed on, they were obviously wrong, or at least not as libertarian as I am.)

----------


## Steely Dan

> The tough thing is, its hard to know for sure if he was corrupted to some extent or if he's just lying to the establishment right now.


All politicians are corrupt. Just look at their donor list's and you will see who owns them. If they can't be corrupted they are promptly gotten rid of.
Personally I am highly suspicious that both Paul's were offered deals they couldn't refuse. Or Else ...

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> What you don't seem to get is "WE" aren't pushing anything.  The only pushing that is being done is by the people we have managed to get elected and Rand is a very important part of that.  What he has done to change the conversation in this country is nothing short of amazing.  To sit there and try to convince people not to support him is more than foolish.


I'm saying that people should not support the rhetoric he is using and adopt it as their own. Ron isn't in Congress to give him more room to operate, so if Rand is going to be successful as someone who works around the edges, it would be more advantageous for those in the liberty movement to remain or become radical, rather than moderating stances and rhetoric to 'fall behind' Rand. Otherwise he will accomplish less and less as the range of acceptable debate shrinks. As it is, his compromise budget and foreign aid proposals have failed to get more than 18 votes, all GOP votes at that. If he can't get traction in the Senate under current conditions, how ineffective will he be from a liberty standpoint if the scope of debate narrows?

Objectively speaking, one of the biggest knocks - from the perspective of the legislative approach - against Ron was that he was an ineffective legislator. By that same standard, Rand has been just as much of a failure. None of his proposals have come anywhere close to passing. Elected officials aren't going to push the boundaries of discussion (even Amash has a tendency to go along to get along rhetorically, and Massie has taken a quiet approach thus far - which isn't unexpected for a freshman Congressman), and certainly not so in the Senate. We're going to need to push the goalposts instead of hoping someone in Washington will do so.

----------


## Brett85

> BTW I just took, "isidewith" and here's how I compare to the LP...


I sided with the Republicans and Libertarians almost evenly.

http://www.isidewith.com/results/285266608

----------


## Christian Liberty

Not in favor of state's rights on gay marriage?  Or was that just a mistake?

----------


## Brett85

> Not in favor of state's rights on gay marriage?  Or was that just a mistake?


It didn't ask about states' rights, just whether I supported it or not.  I think the issue should be handled by the states, as long as the Supreme Court allows the states to decide the issue.

----------


## Carlybee

http://www.isidewith.com/results/285267541

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It didn't ask about states' rights, just whether I supported it or not.  I think the issue should be handled by the states, as long as the Supreme Court allows the states to decide the issue.


You missed the "more positions" button at the bottom of each question

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.isidewith.com/results/285267541


We apparently agree on 96% of issues.  And apparently I didn't answer 2 questions (My answer would have been "Keep the government out of it" or the closest equivalent on both of those.)

I honestly expected we'd be a little farther apart than that.  If they asked more about crime and punishment, we might be, and of course, we've clashed in abortion threads often even though we both voted the same way on the poll

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Good. This is a country that desires conflict with the United States and other likeminded democracies. They are not civilized and cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. You cannot defend this anti-christitan, anti-jewish dictatorial government.


But enough about Israel.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm saying that people should not support the rhetoric he is using and adopt it as their own. Ron isn't in Congress to give him more room to operate, so if Rand is going to be successful as someone who works around the edges, it would be more advantageous for those in the liberty movement to remain or become radical, rather than moderating stances and rhetoric to 'fall behind' Rand. Otherwise he will accomplish less and less as the range of acceptable debate shrinks. As it is, his compromise budget and foreign aid proposals have failed to get more than 18 votes, all GOP votes at that. If he can't get traction in the Senate under current conditions, how ineffective will he be from a liberty standpoint if the scope of debate narrows?
> 
> Objectively speaking, one of the biggest knocks - from the perspective of the legislative approach - against Ron was that he was an ineffective legislator. By that same standard, Rand has been just as much of a failure. None of his proposals have come anywhere close to passing. Elected officials aren't going to push the boundaries of discussion (even Amash has a tendency to go along to get along rhetorically, and Massie has taken a quiet approach thus far - which isn't unexpected for a freshman Congressman), and certainly not so in the Senate. We're going to need to push the goalposts instead of hoping someone in Washington will do so.


Oh sheesh man, Rand is pushing the goalposts almost every interview he gives and article he writes.  I agree that we can't expect only our guys in the federal government to fix everything.  Especially since there aren't nearly enough of them.  It's going to take people at all levels, both inside and outside of government.  I've honestly never thought we could do that much at the federal level; I've always thought that it had to be from the local level on up.  But, that doesn't get much traction on here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's a mistake for people to fall behind Rand. His whole M.O. is to work within established structures. If he's going to be successful we must keep pushing the goalposts further apart instead of contracting them.


Exactly.  When are we going to learn that compromise never brings us success?  As Rushdoony once said, "history is not won by majorities, but by tireless minorities who stand unconditionally on their faith".

----------


## MichaelDavis

> I disagree with Michael Davis on the Iran issue, but let's not call him a "troll" or try to get him banned.  (I don't know if that specifically happened, but it seems like that has happened in the past when a new member has taken a dissenting position on an issue.)  He is most likely a supporter of Rand but is just more hawkish on foreign policy issues.  He's probably one of those people who "agreed with Ron Paul on everything except for foreign policy" and may have voted for him due to his stances on domestic issues that he agreed with.


Pretty much this. Like I have said, I agree with Ron Paul 93% of the time and consider myself a libertarian Republican. I believe in the gold standard, I am against the patriot act, for congressional declaration of war, ending our trade embargo on Cuba, and I am non-interventionist in most instances. For people to call me a troll and tell me to leave the forum or "$#@! off and die" because I disagree with them on one issue is frankly ridiculous. If the rEVOLution is going to tell everyone who doesn't agree with them 100% of the time to leave, they won't have much of a revolution.

The idea that I have an "agenda" is pretty idiotic. Why would I join this website only to advocate a viewpoint that most of RPF disagrees with? I don't understand why some of you would even join a forum if you are just going to condemn anyone who has a different viewpoint than you.

----------


## twomp

It's funny how some people here tell people, "hey if you are a hardcore libertarian and you don't like Rand, get the $#@! out." Then when election time comes, they all piss and moan that the libertarians didn't support Rand. Can't have it both ways kids.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Pretty much this. Like I have said, I agree with Ron Paul 93% of the time and consider myself a libertarian Republican. I believe in the gold standard, I am against the patriot act, for congressional declaration of war, ending our trade embargo on Cuba, and I am non-interventionist in most instances. For people to call me a troll and tell me to leave the forum or "$#@! off and die" because I disagree with them on one issue is frankly ridiculous. If the rEVOLution is going to tell everyone who doesn't agree with them 100% of the time to leave, they won't have much of a revolution.
> 
> The idea that I have an "agenda" is pretty idiotic. Why would I join this website only to advocate a viewpoint that most of RPF disagrees with? I don't understand why some of you would even join a forum if you are just going to condemn anyone who has a different viewpoint than you.


Maybe I shouldn't have jumped the gun.  My impulse is naturally just to neg rep interventionists.  Its not personal.

Telling someone to f-off and die is extreme, but ultimately, the way we feel, and what I hope you'll understand, by supporting intervention in Iran, you're supporting the murder of thousands of people.  Maybe not on purpose, but that's where it leads.

That said, I used to think the way you do.  I won't personally attack you, but the reality is my in general rhetoric may catch someone like you under the umbrella.  That's just how I am, I don't personally hate you, if that makes sense.

----------


## fr33

> It's funny how some people here tell people, "hey if you are a hardcore libertarian and you don't like Rand, get the $#@! out." Then when election time comes, they all piss and moan that the libertarians didn't support Rand. Can't have it both ways kids.


Yeah. Imagine how they might beg during a moneybomb.

Biggest $#@! on this forum =




> To those I say...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> To those I say...


People like you are hurting Rand more than people like Sola_Fide ever could...

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Pretty much this. Like I have said, I agree with Ron Paul 93% of the time and consider myself a libertarian Republican. I believe in the gold standard, I am against the patriot act, for congressional declaration of war, ending our trade embargo on Cuba, and I am non-interventionist in most instances. For people to call me a troll and tell me to leave the forum or "$#@! off and die" because I disagree with them on one issue is frankly ridiculous. If the rEVOLution is going to tell everyone who doesn't agree with them 100% of the time to leave, they won't have much of a revolution.


You're interventionist in the instance that matters most: Middle East and Israel. If you believe all the crap neoconservatives are saying (about the alliance of democracies fighting a common terrorist menace etc), if you're willing to start wars to protect Israel from real and perceived threats, you're not much different from George W Bush on foreign policy.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

http://www.isidewith.com/results/285272794

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.isidewith.com/results/285272794


95%, and only that little because some of your custom answers were recorded as disagreeing with me even where we basically said the same thing.

I'm closer to everyone who has posted here than I or anyone else is to the LP.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I'll note that I've never seen Sola_Fide, or the vast majority of posters who personally oppose Rand, ever try to talk anyone out of voting for Rand.

Of course, that would be stupid, we only have so much time in the day, and Ted Cruz is still masquerading as a liberty candidate.  Time spent bashing him is much better spent.

----------


## FrankRep

Divide and conquer

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Divide and conquer


OK, CaptainLou is controlled opposition.  Driving him out would probably be a good thing.  Nobody who isn't controlled op would ever tell Ron Paul supporters who actually give a crap about Ron Paul's message to fall down the stairs...

Drive.  Them.  Out.

----------


## fr33

> Divide and conquer


Is he not responsible for his email response?

I think it's reasonable to expect a clarification from Rand on this. If he's going to take a hawkish stance like Graham and McCain then there will be consequences.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> 95%, and only that little because some of your custom answers were recorded as disagreeing with me even where we basically said the same thing.
> 
> I'm closer to everyone who has posted here than I or anyone else is to the LP.


Says we're 98% similar. I prefer some other tests anyway. Like this one: http://www.politicaltest.net/test/

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is he not responsible for his email response?
> 
> I think it's reasonable to expect a clarification from Rand on this. If he's going to take a hawkish stance like Graham and McCain then there will be consequences.


He's not even close to in  the same ballpark.  Not even close.

That said, he's not exactly a peacenik regarding Iran either.  The thing is, I KNOW Rand knows better with regards to sanctions, yet he's still doing it.   Which bugs me.

----------


## puppetmaster

> The liberty movement became a tangible force *only* because of Ron Paul's decades of relentless straight talk.
> 
> Political ambiguity will do nothing to further the cause of liberty.
> 
> Rand has contributed very little other than confusion.


 I hope he lies his ass off to get elected....then drops the hammer. War is hell and we are at war with TPTB. TPTB know what he is about but the sheeple are easily fooled and we need them to buy in 100%.

----------


## FrankRep

There will never be a "perfect" candidate, but Rand Paul is pretty damn good and he has a chance of winning the nomination.

Your alternatives will be: Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or Jeb Bush.


I chose Rand Paul.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Says we're 98% similar. I prefer some other tests anyway. Like this one: http://www.politicaltest.net/test/


http://www.politicaltest.net/test/gr...367956_eng.jpg

----------


## jtstellar

rand skeptics dead cat bounce

----------


## MichaelDavis

Are there any history majors in here? Can anyone name something in this video that is untrue about "Palestine"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U

----------


## krugminator

> There will never be a "perfect" candidate, but Rand Paul is pretty damn good and he has a chance of winning the nomination.
> 
> Your alternatives will be: Hillary Clinton, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, or Jeb Bush.
> 
> 
> I chose Rand Paul.


Some people don't have any perspective on this. If Rand runs and is able to maintain or grow the level of support he has now, he will be the most libertarian major candidate since the Framers of the Constitution. 

I looked at economicpolicyjournal and the guy is whining about Rand's penny plan, which balances the budget in 2 years. A lot of these people are nihilists with no thirst for freedom.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Some people don't have any perspective on this. If Rand runs and is able to maintain or grow the level of support he has now, he will be the most libertarian major candidate since the Framers of the Constitution. 
> 
> I looked at economicpolicyjournal and the guy is whining about Rand's penny plan, which balances the budget in 2 years. A lot of these people are nihilists with no thirst for freedom.


That doesn't justify the radicalism of some of the pro-Rand base trying to drive those of us who have legitimate concerns out.

For the record, I do support Rand Paul.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Are there any history majors in here? Can anyone name something in this video that is untrue about "Palestine"?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U


Let me guess, you're one of those Evangelicals who believe in the Rapture theory, right?

----------


## krugminator

> That doesn't justify the radicalism of some of the pro-Rand base trying to drive those of us who have legitimate concerns out.
> 
> For the record, I do support Rand Paul.


Go to economicpolicyjournal. No concern he raises is legitimate.  People like him are not advancing liberty. They are negative cancers.

----------


## fr33

> Are there any history majors in here? Can anyone name something in this video that is untrue about "Palestine"?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U


The whole justification both for Israel and Palestine in that video is based on third parties who do not live there and instead choose to meddle in other peoples' affairs. And it continues today. Israel continues to this day to tear down homes, expand their borders, and steal property from it's owners.

Just you try to come on my property and do that. I don't care which foreign power gave you permission. If I can get my hands on rockets, I'll launch them at you... and everything else I have. Not a threat. Just a hypothetical.

----------


## FrankRep

I think Ron Paul supports Rand Paul.


*Ron Paul: Rand Paul Does a Better Job at Presenting the Issues*



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHcwZ_sC1_M

----------


## Carlybee

> Pretty much this. Like I have said, I agree with Ron Paul 93% of the time and consider myself a libertarian Republican. I believe in the gold standard, I am against the patriot act, for congressional declaration of war, ending our trade embargo on Cuba, and I am non-interventionist in most instances. For people to call me a troll and tell me to leave the forum or "$#@! off and die" because I disagree with them on one issue is frankly ridiculous. If the rEVOLution is going to tell everyone who doesn't agree with them 100% of the time to leave, they won't have much of a revolution.
> 
> The idea that I have an "agenda" is pretty idiotic. Why would I join this website only to advocate a viewpoint that most of RPF disagrees with? I don't understand why some of you would even join a forum if you are just going to condemn anyone who has a different viewpoint than you.



Because if you are truly a liberty person you would not be talking like a neocon hawk therefore to me your motives are suspect.  I don't run the place so you are welcome to do or say whatever you wish.  And I would love it if you prove me wrong.  I don't care if you agree with Ron Paul 93%...you would need to agree with him more on foreign policy with regard to Iran for me to give any credence to your opinion on it and I don't need you telling me that unless Rand tows the line on intervention in Iran that he will lose the election.  If that is the criteria we may as well support a hawk. (not that I would)  And for the record a lot of people join this site for different reasons.  Some are genuine newcomers, some are controlled opposition, some are campaign people, and some are sock puppets.

----------


## Carlybee

> I think Ron Paul supports Rand Paul.
> 
> 
> *Ron Paul: Rand Paul Does a Better Job at Presenting the Issues*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHcwZ_sC1_M



I love how you bring up Ron whenever you want to prove a point, yet you have insulted him in other threads.  I think most of us know Ron loves his son.

----------


## FrankRep

> I love how you bring up Ron whenever you want to prove a point, yet you have insulted him in other threads.  I think most of us know Ron loves his son.


Very rarely do I have a disagreement with Ron Paul. You have me confused with someone else.

----------


## Carlybee

> Very rarely do I have a disagreement with Ron Paul. You have me confused with someone else.


If so then I retract the statement but I sure thought it was you.

----------


## 69360

> Where did I say we should "kill them just in case"? There are ways to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons than from just attacking them. Our sanctions have been working very well. When you have a country threatening to use nuclear weapons to attack the United States, they should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If Israel began threating the Unted States, I would be saying the same thing. This is about our national security, not interventionism.
> 
> http://rt.com/usa/iran-us-bases-israel-889/


Iran isn't even a remote threat to US national security, turn off the TV.




> I disagree with Michael Davis on the Iran issue, but let's not call him a "troll" or try to get him banned.  (I don't know if that specifically happened, but it seems like that has happened in the past when a new member has taken a dissenting position on an issue.)  He is most likely a supporter of Rand but is just more hawkish on foreign policy issues.  He's probably one of those people who "agreed with Ron Paul on everything except for foreign policy" and may have voted for him due to his stances on domestic issues that he agreed with.


I don't want him banned either. I don't agree with sanctions, but I could work with somebody who does.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

> Are there any history majors in here? Can anyone name something in this video that is untrue about "Palestine"?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ByJb7QQ9U


I couldn't even get a few minutes into that Zionist propaganda trash before I felt my brain turning into mush.  It wasn't debunking anything.  The intellectual dishonesty and one-sidedness was staggering: focusing on hand-picked "evil Palestinian" quotes in order to make all Palestinians look like some kind of aggressors and Jews look like poor victims.  It was these same tactics that were used to make the entire German population feel like they were victimized by Jews by focusing on the actions or quotes of a few that were easily demagogued.  Today, this kind of racial/ethnic collectivism is constantly abused by the more nefarious people out there in order to pit people against each other and to make entire bodies of people seem like subhumans.

But of course, as long as you make the focus "the poor Jews", the ends justify the means.  Such is how we've been conditioned by the Zionist media.

----------


## MichaelDavis

> Iran isn't even a remote threat to US national security, turn off the TV.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want him banned either. I don't agree with sanctions, but I could work with somebody who does.


You are the 1%: http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-b...n-as-a-threat/

----------


## compromise

I agree with Rand's stance on this issue completely.

The sanctions Rand is supporting reduce the likelihood of war in this instance.

----------


## compromise

> Just playing devil's advocate, but what I worry about is that he's slowly losing his principles.  As I said, I'm reading his book from 2010 and he seemed much more like Ron Paul than he does now.


That book was written by Jack Hunter.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> OK, CaptainLou is controlled opposition.  Driving him out would probably be a good thing.  Nobody who isn't controlled op would ever tell Ron Paul supporters who actually give a crap about Ron Paul's message to fall down the stairs...
> 
> Drive.  Them.  Out.


Not controlled opposition.  I just don't find any merit in trying to persuade people that not persuadable.  So if someone like that cannot support Rand, I say to them OK - get the $#@! out and go find someone else to support.

If anyone is "controlled opposition" it is the people who find a reason to $#@! all over Rand and his allies in the Senate every chance they get.  So as I said, go $#@! yourself and find someone else to support.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not controlled opposition.  I just don't find any merit in trying to persuade people that not persuadable.  So if someone like that cannot support Rand, I say to them OK - get the $#@! out and go find someone else to support.
> 
> If anyone is "controlled opposition" it is the people who find a reason to $#@! all over Rand and his allies in the Senate every chance they get. * So as I said, go $#@! yourself and find someone else to support*.


Now that wasn't nice.  He's just a kid.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Now that wasn't nice.  He's just a kid.


And a fine example of why we need to repeal the 26th Amendment.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> http://www.isidewith.com/results/285267541


My results:



http://www.isidewith.com/results/285315915

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

Here's mine.



http://www.isidewith.com/results/285323553

Doesn't mean I'd give a dime to the LP or any of their candidates though.

----------


## Brett85

> I agree with Rand's stance on this issue completely.
> 
> The sanctions Rand is supporting reduce the likelihood of war in this instance.


Are you saying that you support sanctions because you actually support them or just because Rand supports them and you feel that you should agree with Rand?

----------


## Carlybee

> Here's mine.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't mean I'd give a dime to the LP or any of their candidates though.


And this just in:  no one cares

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Doesn't mean I'd give a dime to the LP or any of their candidates though.


I won't donate money to any political party, only to candidates.  If the LP nominated someone worthy of my vote, I would donate to him/her.  In a heartbeat.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I won't donate money to any political party, only to candidates.  If the LP nominated someone worthy of my vote, I would donate to him/her.  In a heartbeat.


A fool and his money....

----------


## MichaelDavis

> I won't donate money to any political party, only to candidates.  If the LP nominated someone worthy of my vote, I would donate to him/her.  In a heartbeat.


You might as well throw your money into the garbage (or give it to me). The Libertarian Party is a disgrace that has never won a major election in it's 40 year history.

----------


## phill4paul

> A fool and his money....


  You're just full of sunshine and roses. How about taking another forum break so I can go about the business of not missing your blather.

----------


## A. Havnes

> I have to admit that the way this letter is written, it could've been written by Lindsey Graham, John McCain, or any other neoconservative.  I'm not a "Rand hater" and am going to support him for President in 2016, but this kind of stuff is still disappointing when I read it.  The reason why I became a Ron Paul supporter in 2008 was because of his opposition to war and support for a non interventionist foreign policy.


I agree.  I'm going to vote for Rand, and I do really, really like Rand on a lot of issues, but his support for sanctions, which hurt the citizens more than does the government, isn't something I support.  I miss Ron's blunt honesty sometimes whilst listening to Rand, but I know what Rand is trying to do.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Now that wasn't nice.  He's just a kid.


I really hate when people use my age as an excuse for anything.  You'll notice that I never do that for myself.

I'm very tempted to neg rep this....




> And a fine example of why we need to repeal the 26th Amendment.


Me?  With the exception of Rand Paul or someone similar or better, I'll likely be voting for people with no chance anyway.  



> That book was written by Jack Hunter.


Is that a fact or an opinion?  Because I've never heard that.



> Not controlled opposition.  I just don't find any merit in trying to persuade people that not persuadable.  So if someone like that cannot support Rand, I say to them OK - get the $#@! out and go find someone else to support.
> 
> If anyone is "controlled opposition" it is the people who find a reason to $#@! all over Rand and his allies in the Senate every chance they get.  So as I said, go $#@! yourself and find someone else to support.


As I have said, I do support Rand, but when you see Rand compromising on issues like this and then you blame Ron Paul's base for not sticking with it, rather than blaming Rand, you become an idiot.  Blame Rand for watering down Ron's message.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> As I have said, I do support Rand, but when you see Rand compromising on issues like this and then you blame Ron Paul's base for not sticking with it, rather than blaming Rand, you become an idiot.  Blame Rand for watering down Ron's message.


Rand isn't compromising on this issue, he is voting following the principles he believes in. He is not watering down Ron's message, because he is delivering his own message.  If you want Ron's message, then urge him to run again or right his name in. I'm sure some of the cultists will be doing so.  But all in all, it doesn't matter because in the end, Rand will run his campaign on his issues the way he sees fit without regard to the supposed "Ron Paul base".

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand isn't compromising on this issue, he is voting following the principles he believes in. He is not watering down Ron's message, because he is delivering his own message.  If you want Ron's message, then urge him to run again or right his name in. I'm sure some of the cultists will be doing so.  But all in all, it doesn't matter because in the end, Rand will run his campaign on his issues the way he sees fit without regard to the supposed "Ron Paul base".


That's fine, but when you then turn around and blame Ron Paul's supporters for not supporting Rand, rather than blaming Rand, you're getting it backwards.  Most of us who have a problem with Rand, or Ted Cruz, or any other candidate, do so because of the positions they take, not because their name isn't Ron Paul. I haven't seen anyone here bash Justin Amash or Thomas Massie.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> That's fine, but when you then turn around and blame Ron Paul's supporters for not supporting Rand, rather than blaming Rand, you're getting it backwards.  Most of us who have a problem with Rand, or Ted Cruz, or any other candidate, do so because of the positions they take, not because their name isn't Ron Paul. I haven't seen anyone here bash Justin Amash or Thomas Massie.


They have done it to Amash, not so sure about Massie.  It's not so much that I "blame" Ron supporters, I am at the point where trying to persuade them is pointless.  Many of Ron's supporters that he picked up along the way were apolitical or (worse yet) leftists who jumped on the bandwagon because he was talking about ending the wars and ending the drug war.  If Ron had not run, and say Kucinich did, I have little doubt that they would have, in large part, flocked to him.  The "Ron was the greatest ever and Rand sucks" crowd is such a small part of the electorate that it is not even worth courting.  On here though (and on DP), they seem to have found a home.

----------


## Carlybee

> You might as well throw your money into the garbage (or give it to me). The Libertarian Party is a disgrace that has never won a major election in it's 40 year history.


I've voted for libertarian candidates when I thought they were better on issues I care about. I don't care much for propping up the status quo. I would vote for a libertarian any day over say Rick Santorum or even Rick Perry. I can sleep at night.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> They have done it to Amash, not so sure about Massie.  It's not so much that I "blame" Ron supporters, I am at the point where trying to persuade them is pointless.  Many of Ron's supporters that he picked up along the way were apolitical or (worse yet) leftists who jumped on the bandwagon because he was talking about ending the wars and ending the drug war.  If Ron had not run, and say Kucinich did, I have little doubt that they would have, in large part, flocked to him.  The "Ron was the greatest ever and Rand sucks" crowd is such a small part of the electorate that it is not even worth courting.  On here though (and on DP), they seem to have found a home.


I'd never vote for Kucinich, he's anti-2nd amendment and pro-Fed (Albeit with more oversight, Kucinich's Fed would probably be a little better than the current Fed).  So I'm not really in that camp that you're talking about.  I guess I'm just more picky than most people are.  I believe very strongly in principle and I have a hard time with the lesser of evils mentality.

BTW: I wouldn't say Rand "Sucks" either.  I'd say he's good, not great, but good.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I've voted for libertarian candidates when I thought they were better on issues I care about. I don't care much for propping up the status quo. I would vote for a libertarian any day over say Rick Santorum or even Rick Perry. I can sleep at night.


I believe he was speaking about money and not votes.  Your emotion based voting ("I can sleep at night") not withstanding, donating money to an LP candidate is a waste of money, as evidenced by their repeated failure to win elected office.

----------


## Carlybee

> I believe he was speaking about money and not votes.  Your emotion based voting ("I can sleep at night") not withstanding, donating money to an LP candidate is a waste of money, as evidenced by their repeated failure to win elected office.


Apparently donating to Republicans who don't win is a waste of money then as well. And you dont know anything about my emotions so stop speculating.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Apparently donating to Republicans who don't win is a waste of money then as well.


Agreed.  For example, I wouldn't give a dime to John Dennis who was a fine man, but was running against Pelosi. He had zero chance to win, hell he had zero chance to break 25%.  I believe I have detailed this before in other discussions, but I have a budget for my political donations. At the beginning of the election season, I evaluate the races that I am interested in and then make donations decisions based upon need and viability.  No matter how much I might "like" a candidate, I won't give them a dime if they do not have at the very least an outside chance to win.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I believe he was speaking about money and not votes.  Your emotion based voting ("I can sleep at night") not withstanding, donating money to an LP candidate is a waste of money, as evidenced by their repeated failure to win elected office.


Education does matter too.

If I ever became a billionaire, I'd donate a lot to candidates like that and see whether money could make a difference.

Assuming my fiscal situation in the future is similar to that of my parents now, I'd be in the same boat, I wouldn't have the money to throw at the LP.  But I'd still give them or the Constitution Party (Depending on the particular candidates) my vote.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Education does matter too.
> 
> If I ever became a billionaire, I'd donate a lot to candidates like that and see whether money could make a difference.
> 
> Assuming my fiscal situation in the future is similar to that of my parents now, I'd be in the same boat, I wouldn't have the money to throw at the LP.  But I'd still give them or the Constitution Party (Depending on the particular candidates) my vote.


Financially I am fine, so the money is not an issue for me at all.  I am just smart with what I do with my money.  If there are 10 candidates on my radar, I see much a much greater benefit in giving 5 of them 5000 each rather than giving all ten of them 2500, if 5 of them don't have a chance in hell at winning. (We have two donors in the household)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Financially I am fine, so the money is not an issue for me at all.  I am just smart with what I do with my money.  If there are 10 candidates on my radar, I see much a much greater benefit in giving 5 of them 5000 each rather than giving all ten of them 2500, if 5 of them don't have a chance in hell at winning. (We have two donors in the household)


I can agree with  that as well, unless there's an educational benefit to be gained by supporting a candidate that has little or no  chance to win, as was the case with Ron IMO.

But I'd still vote for LP candidates because why not?  I also don't see anything wrong with donating to the LP even if I personally wouldn't.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Here's mine.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.isidewith.com/results/285323553
> 
> Doesn't mean I'd give a dime to the LP or any of their candidates though.


I honestly did not expect to agree with you 95% of the time

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I can agree with  that as well, unless there's an educational benefit to be gained by supporting a candidate that has little or no  chance to win, as was the case with Ron IMO.
> 
> But I'd still vote for LP candidates because why not?  I also don't see anything wrong with donating to the LP even if I personally wouldn't.


I gave a little to Ron in 08 simply because I believed the 08 campaign was a building block.  In 12, I gave him 2500 pre-Iowa on the condition that I would give more if he won an early state.  I'll do the same with Rand in 16.  

I don't vote for LP candidates, because I see no reason to endorse their folly.  If there isn't a GOP candidate on the ballot that I feel is worthy of my vote, I just abstain.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I honestly did not expect to agree with you 95% of the time


''

Made my skin crawl that the Socialists and Greens scored as well as they did LOL

----------


## Carlybee

Whats the difference between abstaining or "throwing away your vote"?  Both have the same result.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> ''
> 
> Made my skin crawl that the Socialists and Greens scored as well as they did LOL


Its because they agree with us on foreign policy.  Which I probably emphasized a little more than you did.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Whats the difference between abstaining or "throwing away your vote"?  Both have the same result.


Voting for an LP candidate, in my opinion, validates their nonsensical pursuit. Hell, if they get enough votes, they just might be dumb enough to run again.  I have a logical and moral opposition to endorsing insanity.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I gave a little to Ron in 08 simply because I believed the 08 campaign was a building block.  In 12, I gave him 2500 pre-Iowa on the condition that I would give more if he won an early state.  I'll do the same with Rand in 16.  
> 
> I don't vote for LP candidates, because I see no reason to endorse their folly.  If there isn't a GOP candidate on the ballot that I feel is worthy of my vote, I just abstain.





> Voting for an LP candidate, in my opinion, validates their nonsensical pursuit. Hell, if they get enough votes, they just might be dumb enough to run again.  I have a logical and moral opposition to endorsing insanity.



I think the point is to educate, and to show that there are people in this country who actually care but simply will not support either of the major party candidates.  Not voting shows apathy, that may not be fair but that's what people see it as.  you can't confuse a third party vote for apathy.

I don't think anyone in the LP actually thinks they have a chance to win.

That said, at least you abstain.  Far too many people actually give their votes to the McCains and Romneys of the world, and that's evil IMO.

----------


## compromise

> Are you saying that you support sanctions because you actually support them or just because Rand supports them and you feel that you should agree with Rand?


I support them because Rand has made a strong case in favor of them.

----------


## compromise

> Is that a fact or an opinion?  Because I've never heard that.


It's a fact. I've talked to him.

----------


## supermario21

http://www.isidewith.com/results/285347156

----------


## Christian Liberty

> http://www.isidewith.com/results/285347156


I agree with you  99%.  That's the closest yet

----------


## supermario21

> I think the point is to educate, and to show that there are people in this country who actually care but simply will not support either of the major party candidates.  Not voting shows apathy, that may not be fair but that's what people see it as.  you can't confuse a third party vote for apathy.
> 
> I don't think anyone in the LP actually thinks they have a chance to win.
> 
> That said, at least you abstain.  Far too many people actually give their votes to the McCains and Romneys of the world, and that's evil IMO.



There was no value in supporting Gary Johnson for him to run his educational campaign. To be honest, he doesn't really get libertarianism; hence he wasn't educating anyone.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There was no value in supporting Gary Johnson for him to run his educational campaign. To be honest, he doesn't really get libertarianism; hence he wasn't educating anyone.


I was just speaking in general, I get that Gary wasn't a great candidate.  If I had those choices again, I'd still probably vote for Gary just to make a point, but I'm not exactly thrilled with  him either.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I was just speaking in general, I get that Gary wasn't a great candidate.  If I had those choices again, I'd still probably vote for Gary just to make a point, but I'm not exactly thrilled with  him either.


Having been involved in the GOP at the county level for many, many years, trust me on this - no point is being made.  Never once, in all my years, did I ever hear someone say "Wow look at those votes that 3rd party guy got, we should pay attention to what those voters are saying".

Gary Johnson = Roseanne Barr = Mickey Mouse - no point is being made.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> A fool and his money....





> You might as well throw your money into the garbage (or give it to me). The Libertarian Party is a disgrace that has never won a major election in it's 40 year history.

----------


## Carlybee

> Voting for an LP candidate, in my opinion, validates their nonsensical pursuit. Hell, if they get enough votes, they just might be dumb enough to run again.  I have a logical and moral opposition to endorsing insanity.


Moral opposition = emotional

Checkmate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Having been involved in the GOP at the county level for many, many years, trust me on this - no point is being made.  Never once, in all my years, did I ever hear someone say "Wow look at those votes that 3rd party guy got, we should pay attention to what those voters are saying".
> 
> Gary Johnson = Roseanne Barr = Mickey Mouse - no point is being made.


I have no doubt, but that's their problem.  Let them keep losing.

Unless you actually believe the GOP is the lesser of evils.  I honestly do not.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I believe he was speaking about money and not votes.  Your emotion based voting ("I can sleep at night") not withstanding, donating money to an LP candidate is a waste of money, as evidenced by their repeated failure to win elected office.


As I told you once before, voting so you can sleep at night isn't based on emotion; it's based on principles.  I don't want to accuse you of not knowing how that works, but I do wonder at times.

----------


## cajuncocoa

am I the only one on this site who gets suspicious of the motives of some who seem to WANT to drive libertarians away from Rand?  Maybe they're working for the GOP establishment and figure it will be easier to steal the nomination from Rand with us out of the way?  I don't know, but it seems like efforts to take potshots at libertarian members have stepped up since a couple of us have come out and said *we would support Rand*.

conspiracy theory #683,995

carry on.

----------


## Carlybee

> am I the only one on this site who gets suspicious of the motives of some who seem to WANT to drive libertarians away from Rand?  Maybe they're working for the GOP establishment and figure it will be easier to steal the nomination from Rand with us out of the way?  I don't know, but it seems like efforts to take potshots at libertarian members have stepped up since a couple of us have come out and said *we would support Rand*.
> 
> conspiracy theory #683,995
> 
> carry on.


Either that or the Randhandlers want to get rid of the libertarians so as not to jeopardize his chances with establishment and evangelicals.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Either that or the Randhandlers want to get rid of the libertarians so as not to jeopardize his chances with establishment and evangelicals.


Yes, that occurred to me too.  In fact, they have said as much.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> am I the only one on this site who gets suspicious of the motives of some who seem to WANT to drive libertarians away from Rand?  Maybe they're working for the GOP establishment and figure it will be easier to steal the nomination from Rand with us out of the way?  I don't know, but it seems like efforts to take potshots at libertarian members have stepped up since a couple of us have come out and said *we would support Rand*.
> 
> conspiracy theory #683,995
> 
> carry on.


They certainly aren't doing him any favors so one would have to suspect.

Post about people dividing and conquering and then go on to make a thread about Ron Paul mentioning that Rand Paul conveys a liberty message better than him, Ron Paul being a Zionist, and other antagonistic threads which have the undertones of petty mocking immaturity.

Not to mention their insults towards libertarians in general as well as the LP are getting old. They don't seem to understand that Libertarians not being elected has not been the ridiculously one sided loss of freedoms that their pedestalled Republicans or Democrats have been.

----------


## Carlybee

> They certainly aren't doing him any favors so one would have to suspect.
> 
> Post about people dividing and conquering and then go on to make a thread about Ron Paul mentioning that Rand Paul conveys a liberty message better than him, Ron Paul being a Zionist, and other antagonistic threads which have the undertones of petty mocking immaturity.
> 
> Not to mention their insults towards libertarians in general as well as the LP are getting old. They don't seem to understand that Libertarians not being elected has not been the ridiculously one sided loss of freedoms that their pedestalled Republicans or Democrats have been.


Not to mention they lose sight that not all libertarians are members of the LP and many of us are registered Republicans that they are trying to alienate and that many of us made up large portions of those money bombs during Ron's runs.  Maybe Rand has some big dollar donors lined up we don't know about.

----------


## puppetmaster

If you were to vote for Rand Paul you would certainly not be voting for the lesser of two evils as Rand is in no way an evil person or endorses evil policy. No matter how much you agree or disagree with him or no matter how libertarian you are or feel he is you must agree that we would be taking a HUGE step forward getting someone of his caliber in a position of power

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If you were to vote for Rand Paul you would certainly not be voting for the lesser of two evils as Rand is in no way an evil person or endorses evil policy. *No matter how much you agree or disagree with him or no matter how libertarian you are or feel he is you must agree that we would be taking a HUGE step forward* getting someone of his caliber in a position of power


I agree, and I have said so.  But I don't understand why it seems some are doing everything they can to drive libertarians away.

----------


## thoughtomator

Actions matter, not words. Rand is no more likely to go neocon - regardless of what is said for political maneuvering purposes - than John McCain is suddenly likely to adopt the non-aggression principle.

Anyone who's been here for a while has no excuse for hysteria. This is politics, people, and Rand's mastery of the game ought to have you all taking notes, not hurling rotten vegetables.

----------


## thoughtomator

> I agree, and I have said so.  But I don't understand why it seems some are doing everything they can to drive libertarians away.


There are quite a few motives I could name; none of them positive.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Actions matter, not words. Rand is no more likely to go neocon - regardless of what is said for political maneuvering purposes - than John McCain is suddenly likely to adopt the non-aggression principle.
> 
> Anyone who's been here for a while has no excuse for hysteria. This is politics, people, and Rand's mastery of the game ought to have you all taking notes, not hurling rotten vegetables.


To be fair, he has VOTED for things like that latest sanctions bill that also essentially affirmed that if Israel attacked Iran, America would help.

Granted,  it was "non-binding" but  it was still a vote.  I don't think he's secretly a neocon but I don't pretend he's Ron Paul either.

----------


## PatriotOne

> I don't know, but it seems like efforts to take potshots at libertarian members have stepped up since a couple of us have come out and said *we would support Rand*.


Only certain Libertarian members that don't represent the Liberty Movement in a good light and turn off voters.  There's lots of L's on this board...just a handful I don't want to be activists for Rand.  They would be a net loss of votes for Rand,  It's a numbers game.

----------


## Carlybee

> Only certain Libertarian members that don't represent the Liberty Movement in a good light and turn off voters.  There's lots of L's on this board...just a handful I don't want to be activists for Rand.  They would be a net loss of votes for Rand,  It's a numbers game.



Fortunately you aren't the decider are you?

----------


## twomp

> Having been involved in the GOP at the county level for many, many years, trust me on this - no point is being made.  Never once, in all my years, did I ever hear someone say "Wow look at those votes that 3rd party guy got, we should pay attention to what those voters are saying".
> 
> Gary Johnson = Roseanne Barr = Mickey Mouse - no point is being made.


Let's just hope people like you on both sides of the isle die off soon so we can be rid of this Team Red and Team Blue crap that your generation created.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Let's just hope people like you on both sides of the isle die off soon so we can be rid of this Team Red and Team Blue crap that your generation created.


Not happening, we'll all out live the ignorant pricks so that we can take a massive dump on their grave site.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not happening, we'll all out live the ignorant pricks so that we can take a massive dump on their grave site.

----------


## twomp

> Not happening, we'll all out live the ignorant pricks so that we can take a massive dump on their grave site.


LOL you are delusional. It's not 1965 any more. We don't get our news from 3 television stations. There are more Libertarians now then there were last year and that number will continue to grow. There is a reason why the ratings on MSNBC, Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh are all dropping. It's because your people are dying off and everyone else is getting news from alternative sources.

Your Team Red's salvation will be us libertarians not the other way around. It is because of Rand Paul, Amash, Massie and company that some of us are registered republicans. We haven't sworn loyalty to a party like your generation has. That is the reason independents now make up the majority of the population. A trend that will continue as long as Team Red and Team Blue work together to destroy our great country.

If someone like Chris Christie or Marco Rubio becomes president, it will only speed up the destruction of your party because it will provide more evidence of how Team Red and Team Blue are really just the same team. 

There's nothing you or your generation can do to stop it because we don't blindly follow what we see on the television as your generation did.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

Twomp, you are talking out your ass. Never once did I say to vote for any Republican just because he is a Republican. In fact, I have said several times in this very thread that I abstain if I do not like the candidate on the ballot.  I have also said repeatedly that the LP is cluster$#@! not worthy of votes or money.  So instead of insulting an entire generation of people, you might want to improve on your reading comprehension skills.

I agree with you that Christie or Rubio would be disastrous, but if they do win the nomination I am not going to go cry in a corner. You keep working and keep fighting.

If you don't like what I have to offer here, don't read it.  And for insulting an entire generation of voters, I can say only one thing - $#@! you!

----------


## Carlybee

> LOL you are delusional. It's not 1965 any more. We don't get our news from 3 television stations. There are more Libertarians now then there were last year and that number will continue to grow. There is a reason why the ratings on MSNBC, Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh are all dropping. It's because your people are dying off and everyone else is getting news from alternative sources.
> 
> Your Team Red's salvation will be us libertarians not the other way around. It is because of Rand Paul, Amash, Massie and company that some of us are registered republicans. We haven't sworn loyalty to a party like your generation has. That is the reason independents now make up the majority of the population. A trend that will continue as long as Team Red and Team Blue work together to destroy our great country.
> 
> If someone like Chris Christie or Marco Rubio becomes president, it will only speed up the destruction of your party because it will provide more evidence of how Team Red and Team Blue are really just the same team. 
> 
> There's nothing you or your generation can do to stop it because we don't blindly follow what we see on the television as your generation did.



Don't blame the whole generation. I'm a late baby boomer and I agree with much of what you said. There are youngsters on here who think like them too.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

FYI, Ron won the youth vote in only handful of states. Santorum and Romney both had higher numbers. So to say the youth vote is decidedly on our side is a falsehood.

----------


## twomp

> Twomp, you are talking out your ass. Never once did I say to vote for any Republican just because he is a Republican. In fact, I have said several times in this very thread that I abstain if I do not like the candidate on the ballot.  I have also said repeatedly that the LP is cluster$#@! not worthy of votes or money.  So instead of insulting an entire generation of people, you might want to improve on your reading comprehension skills.
> 
> I agree with you that Christie or Rubio would be disastrous, but if they do win the nomination I am not going to go cry in a corner. You keep working and keep fighting.
> 
> If you don't like what I have to offer here, don't read it.  And for insulting an entire generation of voters, I can say only one thing - $#@! you!


Insulting? Is it not your generation that did all this? Weren't you guys bringing up Freedom Fanatic's age? Tell me what I said that is insulting? Did your generation not grow up learning your political views from the television? Is your generation not the one that created this whole left vs. right argument? Are you not advocating we stick to the same 2 party principals that your generation adheres to? I'm sorry you can't handle the truth but I'm not going to cuss you out for it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Only certain Libertarian members that don't represent the Liberty Movement in a good light and turn off voters.  There's lots of L's on this board...just a handful I don't want to be activists for Rand.  They would be a net loss of votes for Rand,  It's a numbers game.


If you really knew me away from this board, I think you would jump at the chance to have me campaigning for Rand.  I don't fit the typical profile (in your mind) of libertarians/Libertarians.  You shouldn't stereotype people.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Don't blame the whole generation. *I'm a late baby boomer* and I agree with much of what you said. There are youngsters on here who think like them too.


Yep, same here.  That whole Dem/Rep paradigm is a sickness that crosses gender, age, race, generations, etc.  I wish we didn't have political parties.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Insulting? Is it not your generation that did all this? Weren't you guys bringing up Freedom Fanatic's age? Tell me what I said that is insulting? Did your generation not grow up learning your political views from the television? Is your generation not the one that created this whole left vs. right argument? Are you not advocating we stick to the same 2 party principals that your generation adheres to? I'm sorry you can't handle the truth but I'm not going to cuss you out for it.


Some people did learn their political views from television, some with books, some with speakers, some with activism.  No different than now honestly.  Sure there are more outlets easily accessible, but there always has been alternative media (I was reading JBS newsletters back in the 60's) 

As far as the left/right two party argument, check your history, with rare exceptions, we have always had a two party system in place.  The type of government, along with the way we conduct elections (majority vote wins) leads to it.  The good thing though, is that today we have a primary system where various factions within a party can challenge on another to see whom is going to run in the general election. Again, this is something else I have discussed at great length.

I speak out against minor parties (particularly the LP & CP) because 40 years of history has shown that they are nothing more than a drain on time and money for libertarians and paleocons.  One can only wonder if those people who spent countless hours and untold money on funding what amounts to nothing more than vanity campaigns, we could be much further along in this process of restoring the GOP to its founding principles as Ron Paul has called for.

Another thing that pisses me off, is that when you come on this site you see more bitching and moaning about Republicans, the two party system, etc than you do about Progressives.  It's the $#@!ing Progressives that have gotten us in this mess, and they exist in both parties.  So much time here is spent putting guys like Ted Cruz and guys like him under a microscope to check their purity, that you all seem to forget that its the Progressive $#@!s that are the real enemy.  I am sure they get a laugh out of how our side picks apart our allies.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Insulting? Is it not your generation that did all this? Weren't you guys bringing up Freedom Fanatic's age? Tell me what I said that is insulting? Did your generation not grow up learning your political views from the television? Is your generation not the one that created this whole left vs. right argument? Are you not advocating we stick to the same 2 party principals that your generation adheres to? I'm sorry you can't handle the truth but I'm not going to cuss you out for it.


Not taking up for CaptLou...I think you're right about how he thinks, but as Carlybee said: don't blame an entire generation for the way he thinks.  If you took a poll of people in every generation you will find the majority of people think like this.  How do you think Obama got elected?  A lot of college kids were mesmerized by the hopey-changey thing, that's how.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I speak out against minor parties (particularly the LP & CP) because 40 years of history has shown that they are nothing more than a drain on time and money for libertarians and paleocons.  One can only wonder if those people who spent countless hours and untold money on funding what amounts to nothing more than vanity campaigns, we could be much further along in this process of restoring the GOP to its founding principles as Ron Paul has called for.


Then why did you vote for the CP candidate?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Then why did you vote for the CP candidate?


I like Baldwin alot, and would like to see him continue in politics. I saw him speak several years back and he spoke at length about the necessity of being involved in the GOP so that we have a voice.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I like Baldwin alot, and would like to see him continue in politics. I saw him speak several years back and he spoke at length about the necessity of being involved in the GOP so that we have a voice.


and yet he wasn't involved with the GOP...he ran under the CP banner.  Why did you waste your vote like that?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> and yet he wasn't involved with the GOP...he ran under the CP banner.  Why did you waste your vote like that?


As I said it was a vote of confidence in his desire to continue in the political process.  And he did return to the GOP running for (albeit briefly) Lt Gov in MT.  Baldwin is a registered Republican today, so my hunch was correct.

Out of 54 years of voting, and never missing an election, Baldwin is the only minor party candidate I can recall voting for.  There may have been a non-partisan office locally or something at one time or another, but as far as major races, I will abstain rather than voting for a minor party candidate.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> As I said it was a vote of confidence in his desire to continue in the political process.  And he did return to the GOP running for (albeit briefly) Lt Gov in MT.  Baldwin is a registered Republican today, so my hunch was correct.
> 
> Out of 54 years of voting, and never missing an election, Baldwin is the only minor party candidate I can recall voting for.  There may have been a non-partisan office locally or something at one time or another, but as far as major races, I will abstain rather than voting for a minor party candidate.


And yet you said you couldn't recall for sure if you really _had_ voted for him.  Just how much smoke are you blowing here?

----------


## twomp

> Some people did learn their political views from television, some with books, some with speakers, some with activism.  No different than now honestly.  Sure there are more outlets easily accessible, but there always has been alternative media (I was reading JBS newsletters back in the 60's) 
> 
> As far as the left/right two party argument, check your history, with rare exceptions, we have always had a two party system in place.  The type of government, along with the way we conduct elections (majority vote wins) leads to it.  The good thing though, is that today we have a primary system where various factions within a party can challenge on another to see whom is going to run in the general election. Again, this is something else I have discussed at great length.
> 
> I speak out against minor parties (particularly the LP & CP) because 40 years of history has shown that they are nothing more than a drain on time and money for libertarians and paleocons.  One can only wonder if those people who spent countless hours and untold money on funding what amounts to nothing more than vanity campaigns, we could be much further along in this process of restoring the GOP to its founding principles as Ron Paul has called for.
> 
> Another thing that pisses me off, is that when you come on this site you see more bitching and moaning about Republicans, the two party system, etc than you do about Progressives.  It's the $#@!ing Progressives that have gotten us in this mess, and they exist in both parties.  So much time here is spent putting guys like Ted Cruz and guys like him under a microscope to check their purity, that you all seem to forget that its the Progressive $#@!s that are the real enemy.  I am sure they get a laugh out of how our side picks apart our allies.


There's nothing that I disagree with you there. I guess I shouldn't have gone after an ENTIRE generation because that would unfairly lump some of you as part of that group which you folks clearly don't deserve so I apologize for that. 

I think ALL our politicians should be put under a microscope and the only reason we don't put many democrats under the microscope is because we already know they are full of it. IF one day, some sort of "libertarian" democrat comes along claiming he's one of us, I'm sure he will be put under that very same microscope. In the end, I still believe the two party system will be and should be dying out. The only thing I think that is stopping that from happening is this relentless push for everyone to stay within the parameters of this same two party system that isn't working.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> And yet you said you couldn't recall for sure if you really _had_ voted for him.  Just how much smoke are you blowing here?


I haven't thought about 08, since 08. Until you brought it up, I had to recall whether or not he was on the ballot, which gave me a reason to recall the scenario.

In terms of things that are important to my life my vote in 08, is low on the list

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I haven't thought about 08, since 08. Until you brought it up, I had to recall whether or not he was on the ballot, which gave me a reason to recall the scenario.
> 
> In terms of things that are important to my life my vote in 08, is low on the list


2008:  CaptLou's lost year.  OK, sure.

----------


## compromise

I voted for Baldwin in '08 (first time I've voted in a presidential election) solely because Ron endorsed him (McCain was unbearable and I was more libertarian then so I didn't care much for Palin). I went with Romney in 2012 because Rand endorsed him and I wanted to see Obama gone.

----------


## Smitty

The GOP spit in the face of an entire generation of voters,..a generation that is just now coming of age.

It's now a damaged brand.

Trying to make it seem "reformed" will require a much larger effort than starting from scratch.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I voted for Baldwin in '08 (first time I've voted in a presidential election) solely because Ron endorsed him (McCain was unbearable and I was more libertarian then so I didn't care much for Palin). I went with Romney in 2012 because Rand endorsed him and I wanted to see Obama gone.


Rand's endorsement of Romney wasn't aimed at you, idiot

Seriously though... why?  I mean, I know all of the options sucked, but Romney was the worst option on that ballot.

That said, McCain is even worse.

----------


## Anti-Neocon

At the time, I thought Romney was worse than Obama but I don't even know anymore.  They're both so so bad, and supporting Obama was much better from a pro-Ron Paul strategic perspective.

I don't really like the idea of voting for 3rd parties when your vote can potentially swing an election, but I do in the races that don't matter.  In New York there was no point of voting for either Romney or Obama.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> At the time, I thought Romney was worse than Obama but I don't even know anymore.  They're both so so bad, and supporting Obama was much better from a pro-Ron Paul strategic perspective.
> 
> I don't really like the idea of voting for 3rd parties when your vote can potentially swing an election, but I do in the races that don't matter.  In New York there was no point of voting for either Romney or Obama.


I still feel the same way that you did, but only very marginally.  It didn't really matter.  Gary Johnson would have been my pick, yeah he did kind of suck but at least he sucked SIGNIFICANTLY less than any of the others.  At least Gary was theoretically willing to get rid of the Fed and scale back on the foreign policy interventionism.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I went with Romney in 2012 because Rand endorsed him.


well, I guess Rand's endorsement wasn't as meaningless as so many here believed it was.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> well, I guess Rand's endorsement wasn't as meaningless as so many here believed it was.


compromise actually let Rand talk him out of some of Ron Paul's positions.  I don't think that was Rand's goal at all.  Ron Paul supporters aren't his intended audience.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> compromise actually let Rand talk him out of some of Ron Paul's positions.  I don't think that was Rand's goal at all.  Ron Paul supporters aren't his intended audience.


I'm not convinced that compromise was ever on board with any of Ron's positions.  Once you go Ron Paul, you don't regress!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not convinced that compromise was ever on board with any of Ron's positions.  Once you go Ron Paul, you don't regress!


I don't know about that, heck, I still don't believe he's right about everything, although he certainly is most of the time.

----------


## compromise

> Rand's endorsement of Romney wasn't aimed at you, idiot
> 
> Seriously though... why?  I mean, I know all of the options sucked, but Romney was the worst option on that ballot.
> 
> That said, McCain is even worse.


Rand made a strong case that Romney's support for Audit the Fed, SOPA, the REINS Act, Obamacare, Keystone, Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, etc.

Supporting Romney helps gain the trust of local grassroots Republicans, with whom we have to work with in 2016.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand made a strong case that Romney's support for Audit the Fed, SOPA, the REINS Act, Obamacare, Keystone, Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, etc.
> 
> Supporting Romney helps gain the trust of local grassroots Republicans, with whom we have to work with in 2016.


I knew Rand's endorsement wasn't meaningless.  This makes me sick.

----------


## jtstellar

we're still talking about the romney endorsement.. seriously

----------


## vita3

How about Rand ends the madness of us fighting w/ Al-queda in Syria?

----------


## Smitty

> Rand made a strong case that Romney's support for Audit the Fed, SOPA, the REINS Act, Obamacare, Keystone, Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, etc.
> 
> Supporting Romney helps gain the trust of local grassroots Republicans, with whom we have to work with in 2016.


Rand's support of Romney was a major setback for the liberty movement.

I don't know why he did it,...but whatever the reason was,..it wasn't enough.

----------


## krugminator

> Rand's support of Romney was a major setback for the liberty movement.
> 
> I don't know why he did it,...but whatever the reason was,..it wasn't enough.


It was major step forward.  The Liberty Movement makes up about 5% of voters and most of those voters are poor. Supporting Romney shows people that Rand is open to adapting his opinion to political realities. It has allowed him access to donors.  Rand is doing things that will make him at least palatable to the overwhelming majority of Republicans.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> we're still talking about the romney endorsement.. seriously


compromise brought it up.  Said it influenced his vote.  Seriously.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand's support of Romney was a major setback for the liberty movement.
> 
> I don't know why he did it,...but whatever the reason was,..it wasn't enough.


I wasn't happy about it; I'm still not.  But I'm ready to move on if others stop bringing it up.

----------


## jtstellar

> compromise brought it up.  Said it influenced his vote.  Seriously.


ok not you, it's to the hundreds i still come across trolling on various forums that talk about anything rand paul related, and all they do is mention endorsement x100

----------


## Smitty

> Rand is doing things that will make him at least palatable to the overwhelming majority of Republicans.


I've noticed.

----------


## r123

Inflation in Iran is now 68%. This is unsustainable. So, in June,  Iranians elected a new President -- the most reform minded candidate --  in a huge landslide. The U.S. should lift some economic sanctions to  provide some immediate relief to their deepening depression. Google Still Report #91 -- Lift Iranian Sanctions

----------


## jtstellar

> Inflation in Iran is now 68%. This is unsustainable. So, in June,  Iranians elected a new President -- the most reform minded candidate --  in a huge landslide. The U.S. should lift some economic sanctions to  provide some immediate relief to their deepening depression. Google Still Report #91 -- Lift Iranian Sanctions


whatever the case, i believe there is enough example to suggest that rand paul listens to objective evidence and evaluates them fairly.  

sanction is also but a part of a comprehensive plan to influence various dictatorship in the middle east.. if they withdraw from a stance as intimidating as this they might as well just pull troops from the middle east, which isn't going to happen unless country's mood changes enough to let rand become president.  i'm not saying rand being president is a necessary condition for reform to go forward, but it will certainly be an indicator

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand made a strong case that Romney's support for Audit the Fed, SOPA, the REINS Act, Obamacare, Keystone, Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, etc.


You suppot SOPA?



> Supporting Romney helps gain the trust of local grassroots Republicans, with whom we have to work with in 2016.


That's great for Rand, you should be smarter than that unless you're a politician.





> I knew Rand's endorsement wasn't meaningless.  This makes me sick.


compromise is a Rand worshipper.



> I wasn't happy about it; I'm still not.  But I'm ready to move on if others stop bringing it up.


I actually do think Rand should have endorsed Romney.  I didn't support him, I actually believed Obama was the lesser evil (albeit barely) but tactically, it made complete sense to do so...  Also, even Murray Rothbard endorsed George Bush over Bill Clinton, so its clearly not per say a violation of libertarian principle to do so, and certainly not for a libertarian leaning conservative.

I do, however, wish Rand had done it differently.  Most of the Romney voters I knew voted for him despite disliking him, because they hated Obama more.  If I were Rand I would have endorsed Romney, but I would have done so with the back of my hand and solely focused on Obama being terrible.  I would never have said anything positive about Romney.

----------

