Audio update - Rand Paul on The Michael Medved Show 1/19/12

I too have been very impressed with State Senator Davis this past week. The guy mentioned Rothbard in his endorsement speech for goodness sake. he takes classes online at LvMI. He seems very promising to me. Any legitimate fan of Rothbard and LvMI is a fan to this movement. IMO I wouldn't be surprised if Davis knew more about economics than Rand. I have never really heard Rand speak on Austrian economics or LvMI at length.


You serious?

Rand can complete give us chapter and verse.

I'm surprise anyone here is suggesting that Rand is corruptible. He is imperfect, but he also grew up with the influence of Ron for 4 decades...

Rand is doing everything that I wish Ron would do. He's not compromising on significant issues at all. He's taking strong stands on things which are controversial within his own party, yet he still knows how to talk their talk and bring them onto his side.
 
While Romney would continue the destruction of America, Obama might just end it in his last term.

But say we survive, we will be in such bad shape that the NOBP people will stain any candidate they get behind.
Romney and Obama are one in the same man. They say roughly the same things, support the same policies, they just look different and have a different letter by their name. A vote for either is the same vote. Gingrich is probably worse than either of them. How does the NOBP idea not make sense? The lesser of two evils isn't what this is about. A vote should be earned, not bargained for, nor bought. If a politician isn't about what I want, why should i vote for them? I don't understand the concept. Perhaps you understand what I don't and can explain it to me.
 
While Romney would continue the destruction of America, Obama might just end it in his last term.

But say we survive, we will be in such bad shape that the NOBP people will stain any candidate they get behind.

That's what people said in 2008, and the world did not end with Obama as President. Instead, the country became predictably worse, but circumstances became more favorable for us. Similarly, our refusal to support McCain did not "stain" our reputation this year. The same applies this year. The country will fall apart just as quickly under someone like Romney as someone like Obama, considering they're only superficially different. (If the country does collapse entirely, it's much better if it happens under a Democrat...once again, collapse under a Republican could seriously lead to a reactionary push toward the United Soviet States of America.) The real difference is that with Romney, our next shot will be in 2020, and ONLY if a Democrat - possibly worse than Obama - wins in 2016. By then, your fears about it being "too late" just may come true. We absolutely cannot allow an establishment Republican to win, or this country is toast.
 
Last edited:
You serious?

Rand can complete give us chapter and verse.

I'm surprise anyone here is suggesting that Rand is corruptible. He is imperfect, but he also grew up with the influence of Ron for 4 decades...

Rand is doing everything that I wish Ron would do. He's not compromising on significant issues at all. He's taking strong stands on things which are controversial within his own party, yet he still knows how to talk their talk and bring them onto his side.
Sanctions on Iran is a significant issue. Further infuriating that part of the world is not good for our future.
 
Sanctions on Iran is a significant issue. Further infuriating that part of the world is not good for our future.

It's the 100th vote. Secondly, Ron "infuriated that part of the world" by voting for the AUMF into Afghanistan. Once again. No harm, no foul. His vote can be easily digested, due to near unanimous support by his colleagues.
 
Last edited:
There is no doubt that Ron has spoiled us, and for that I don't think I'll ever feel as passionate about a candidate as I do for him. I'll be as passionate for the movement sure, but not for a candidate. I'm afraid that next election cycle, if Ron doesn't win this year, that the ultimate irony will be that it'll be we the supporters and not Ron himself that will have to come down a bit from our high standards. No matter who his successor ends up being, he just won't be Ron. That person most likely will be more eloquent of a debater, might be more slick of a politician, but he won't have Ron's moral fiber, his economic genius, nor his consistency. That person most likely would have taken something from a lobbyist, would have voted for or proposed a unbalanced budget at some point, would gone against the constitution in some fashion that we'll look back and say "No way would Ron have done that." But alas, what will be will be. In my wildest dreams I could only hope that they measure up. Rand has his dad's last name sure, but Rand isn't half the man his old man is. It is what it is.
 
It's the 100th vote. Secondly, Ron "infuriated that part of the world" by voting for the AUMF into Afghanistan. Once again. No harm, no foul. His vote can be easily digested, due to near unanimous support by his colleagues.
At no point did I ever say I agreed with every decision Ron made either. I simply responded that Rand has compromised on significant issues. Afghanistan /= Iran. The situations are completely and utterly different. What difference does the vote number make?
 
At no point did I ever say I agreed with every decision Ron made either. I simply responded that Rand has compromised on significant issues. Afghanistan /= Iran. The situations are completely and utterly different. What difference does the vote number make?

On emotionally charged votes like those 2, which any defiance is viewed almost as treason, I'm willing to overlook them. It wasn't like either one of them were key votes. They were the definition of extreme surplus votes.
 
Last edited:
While Romney would continue the destruction of America, Obama might just end it in his last term.

But say we survive, we will be in such bad shape that the NOBP people will stain any candidate they get behind.

I think a President Romney will have a complicit Congress and maybe Senate. Remember Bush and the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan and No Child Left Behind? At least with Obama there is feigned opposition from the legislative branch.

Mini-Me is right in that this campaign wouldn't have accomplished what it did with McCain's election. We can feed off Republican dissatisfaction.
 
Rand doesn't have a long enough record for me to really have an opinion on his future political career. I'll be watching that record and asking others to do the same.
 
I think a President Romney will have a complicit Congress and maybe Senate. Remember Bush and the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan and No Child Left Behind? At least with Obama there is feigned opposition from the legislative branch.

Mini-Me is right in that this campaign wouldn't have accomplished what it did with McCain's election. We can feed off Republican dissatisfaction.

You haven't noticed how much worse Obama has been than Bush. It is possible and it has been done. If ObamaCare is not repealed it will kill America. Have you read some of the stuff that is in there? And the SC justices, 4 are in their 70's. Say what you want about Republicans, Bush appointing Alito and Roberts is much better than Kagan.

I don't see Republicans going for big government again at this juncture.
 
I think a President Romney will have a complicit Congress and maybe Senate. Remember Bush and the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan and No Child Left Behind? At least with Obama there is feigned opposition from the legislative branch.

Mini-Me is right in that this campaign wouldn't have accomplished what it did with McCain's election. We can feed off Republican dissatisfaction.

I saw what a Republican Assembly, a Republican senate and a Republican governor did in NYS in 2000, passed an assault weapons ban, after Democrats failed to do it for years.

GWB and the Republican congress and Senate scared the crap out of me, and for good reason, it turned out.

Give me gridlock or give me death! No, wait, give me Ron Paul or give me gridlock! Yeah, that's it.
 
You haven't noticed how much worse Obama has been than Bush. It is possible and it has been done. If ObamaCare is not repealed it will kill America. Have you read some of the stuff that is in there? And the SC justices, 4 are in their 70's. Say what you want about Republicans, Bush appointing Alito and Roberts is much better than Kagan.

I don't see Republicans going for big government again at this juncture.
Okay, so let's pretend Romney will be a bit better than Obama. We'll still be SCREWED, because we will have no chance to field anyone until 2020 at the earliest. Assuming there's even an election that year, we'll only even have a chance in hell if a Democrat is President from 2016 to 2020...a Democrat who will most likely be worse than Obama anyway! You haven't noticed that each President is worse than the last? It's not a coincidence, and no matter what, we will only ever be able to elect the first liberty President following a Democrat.

No matter how bad Obama is, the stakes are only going to continue getting higher. A non-Paul Republican win will cripple the liberty movement for at LEAST 8 years. Do you really think we have enough time to start all over from scratch (aka, go back to our old soft support levels) that many years from now?
 
Last edited:
Rand hasnt earned it yet.whats the difference between an established senator like DeMint and Rand? nothing really.
 
Does Justin Amash even support the gold standard? I don't know anything about him so I checked out his website but I couldn't find anything about the gold standard or ending the fed on there.

If he doesn't actively oppose the federal reserve, fiat money and fractional reserve banking then I would not class him as a successor to Ron Paul. No way. Never.
 
Amash is absolutely an opponent of the Federal Reserve. I'm haven't yet found a reference where he actively promotes gold and/or competing currencies as the correct alternative (or warns against fractional reserve banking itself), but make no mistake: He is no friend to the Fed.

As a congressman Ron Paul was constantly speaking out against the Federal Reserve. He was trying to make it an issue. I'm sure what you say is correct, but for a Congressman who's purportedly against the gold standard, it's extremely dissapointing to see nothing on his congressional website about it. His website is his platform to raise awareness for the issues.

The torch bearer for liberty must be someone who doesn't shy away from the issue of central banking.
 
Back
Top