Bill Kristol admits Ron (and Rand) Paul supporters are the future of the GOP

[Agorism]

lol saw this on dailypaul. maybe they got it from u\here, and i was just about to post it. ha

 

[Britannia]

Looking at how some conservatives stand on social issues, especially the religious right, I have to say from the perspective of someone from Great Britain it's not something I'm used to or am comfortable with. In this country we've gotten over religion in a way I think I great many Americans haven't. There's a strain of Christian religious fundamentalists active in American politics that I find a little bit scary. People who believe that the earth was literally made in seven days and Charles Darwin should have been strung up from a lamp-post for his theory of evolution. I'd prefer it if religion and politics were kept far apart, as they are here, it causes nothing but trouble and bad feeling. The fact that Rick Santorum did so well in the republican primaries scared the living daylights out of me, and doubtless most moderate Christians who progressed further religiously than the dark ages.

 

[eleganz]

we already knew this was coming whether they wanted to admit it or not.

here we come

 

[deadfish]

What I fear is that the people in the movement who decide to go the political route may experience a few wins, but then get sucked in to the machine and become what they were fighting against. Then the people who didn't use politics will now face the establishment + compromised libertarians. Compromised libertarians can really hurt the forward progress of the movement more than a straight up communist.

And it is undeniable that politics will corrupt people.

You could be right, but maybe libertarians tend be made of characters that are more likely to stick to their principle when the lobbyists come knocking? I believe so.

 

[orenbus]

fast foward this one to 6:38, see Bill Kristol lose his mind.

 

[Nate-ForLiberty]

You could be right, but maybe libertarians tend be made of characters that are more likely to stick to their principle when the lobbyists come knocking? I believe so.

Well, we have one example of a politician who didn't entertain lobbyists showing up at his door. So right now, we are at 100%. I think it is logical to conclude that the more libertarians we get into office the lower that percentage will drop. Therefore, "freedom" cannot be achieved through the political process. Since this is the case, we ought to find a point to aim for where political action is no longer the focus.

I dunno, what do you think?

 

[Pisces]

Looking at how some conservatives stand on social issues, especially the religious right, I have to say from the perspective of someone from Great Britain it's not something I'm used to or am comfortable with. In this country we've gotten over religion in a way I think I great many Americans haven't. There's a strain of Christian religious fundamentalists active in American politics that I find a little bit scary. People who believe that the earth was literally made in seven days and Charles Darwin should have been strung up from a lamp-post for his theory of evolution. I'd prefer it if religion and politics were kept far apart, as they are here, it causes nothing but trouble and bad feeling. The fact that Rick Santorum did so well in the republican primaries scared the living daylights out of me, and doubtless most moderate Christians who progressed further religiously than the dark ages.

No offense, but I think from Great Britain all you are seeing is a caricature. Not many Christians think Charles Darwin should be strung up from a lamp-post even if they don't believe in evolution. If Santorum had his way on all his social positions, that would probably just mean an America that looks like it did in the 1950's or 1960's- hardly a theocracy. I actually think people were happier back then because families and local communities were stronger. But to me it's like Humpty Dumpty. If society loses it's sense of right and wrong, all the king's horses and all the king's men (government) can't put it back together again.

 

[nobody's_hero]

On the other hand I gather Ron is the type of person who would allow social issues to be dealt with on the state level...

You don't have to be pro-life or pro-choice to recognize that each state should be allowed to deal with those types of issues in their own way.

This is why I never bother arguing about social positions on these boards... if we just followed the 10th amendment and allowed the states the right to choose none of us would we have a right to complain or argue about anything outside the state level.

This works for me. I think there are a lot of republicans who sort-of woke up after Colorado and Washington de-criminalized marijuana. It was as if these republicans had forgotten that states could do that. In name, anyway, a republican should be able to understand a 10th-amendment approach more than democrats, but in this day and age, everyone is fighting over who gets to beat up the other guy at the federal level. We need more states to assert themselves with social issues and I think republicans will realize that the concept of state and local governance hasn't died.

I've been sharing links to www.tenthamendmentcenter.com because I think it is the future in terms of getting republicans to once again understand what the word "republic" means.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

lol eat it mfs!! ron pauls ideals will not go away. suck on it!

 

[Adrock]

What I fear is that the people in the movement who decide to go the political route may experience a few wins, but then get sucked in to the machine and become what they were fighting against. Then the people who didn't use politics will now face the establishment + compromised libertarians. Compromised libertarians can really hurt the forward progress of the movement more than a straight up communist.

And it is undeniable that politics will corrupt people.

That is definitely something too look out for. We need to be vigilant if they start to do that. I am hoping that if and when the culture changes, our representatives will reflect that.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

hahaha never seen that... every time I see a video I hadn't seen before it makes me think of all the people who have yet to see ANY videos and what exactly is going to happen as Ron's legacy lives on through youtube...

 

[bunklocoempire]

Fox "mistaking" a man with a movement, driving the Fox viewers out to the desert, and then leaving them there to die. Oopsie daisy..

CPAC spin. Kristol at 1:34 "the spirit of the tea party is not the spirit of Ron Paul"


Iowa straw poll spin.

 

[deadfish]

Well, we have one example of a politician who didn't entertain lobbyists showing up at his door. So right now, we are at 100%. I think it is logical to conclude that the more libertarians we get into office the lower that percentage will drop. Therefore, "freedom" cannot be achieved through the political process. Since this is the case, we ought to find a point to aim for where political action is no longer the focus.

I dunno, what do you think?

I am currently optimistic. If Rand, Amash, Massie, Bentivolio, etc. all end up fucking us over in 2-4 years, I'll reconsider and probably agree with you. I spend a lot of time watching Rand's lengthy floor speeches and reading most of Amash's vote explanations. They just come across as honest people, like Ron. So far, their voting records reflects a genuine push for smaller gov't. I think we would really be better off with people in power like Glen Bradley, Kurt Bills, Chris Hightower, Peter Schiff, Karen Kwiatkowski and so many others.

 

[orenbus]

 

[nutroll]

You guys are being taken for a ride

Rand Paul (and the obviously organized online presence behind him), the one that needlessly cavorted with neo cons in a secret meeting before his senate election/GOP primary nomination and that Kristol is setting up to win . THE RINOS ARE TIRED OF THE CARCASS OF EVANGELICAL CONSERVATISM. To that end, they plan on using the momentum of the co-opted Ron Paul movement and the MSM frequent cries of "the country's culture has shifted left" to change the makeup of the party in their favor. Kristol wouldn't like Rand Paul my @!#. You guys are so convinced you got the inside angle u don't realize you're the fish being reeled in.

Rand Paul will advance the new GOP, which is a rehashed version of liberventionism under the Cato / Reason mag Koch brothers faction. Ever wonder why that Ayn Rand movie even came out?

Justin Raimondo said it best, ....http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/09/23/the-hollow-man-rand-pauls-father-complex/

The great danger is that the election of Rand Paul to the US Senate will change the ideological complexion of libertarianism, as it is perceived by the public, and quite possibly succeed in derailing the ongoing work of his father and the Campaign for Liberty in challenging the neocons’ hegemony in the GOP when it comes to foreign policy. The recent release of the House GOP caucus "Pledge to America," which repeats this same neocon litany of endless war and extravagant "defense" expenditures, shows that this fight is far from over – and Rand Paul is on the wrong side.

Now the NeoCons are playing you, "Oh I wouldnt like a Rand Paul candidacy but hes Top Tier" etc etc... Nevermind that the ARI is frothing at the mouth against Muslims. You are being taken for a ride, hope you like the trip.

 

[TheGrinch]

Rand Paul (and the obviously organized online presence behind him), the one that needlessly cavorted with neo cons in a secret meeting before his senate election/GOP primary nomination and that Kristol is setting up to win . THE RINOS ARE TIRED OF THE CARCASS OF EVANGELICAL CONSERVATISM. To that end, they plan on using the momentum of the co-opted Ron Paul movement and the MSM frequent cries of "the country's culture has shifted left" to change the makeup of the party in their favor. Kristol wouldn't like Rand Paul my @!#. You guys are so convinced you got the inside angle u don't realize you're the fish being reeled in.

Rand Paul will advance the new GOP, which is a rehashed version of liberventionism under the Cato / Reason mag Koch brothers faction. Ever wonder why that Ayn Rand movie even came out?

Justin Raimondo said it best, ....http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/09/23/the-hollow-man-rand-pauls-father-complex/



Now the NeoCons are playing you, "Oh I wouldnt like a Rand Paul candidacy but hes Top Tier" etc etc... Nevermind that the ARI is frothing at the mouth against Muslims. You are being taken for a ride, hope you like the trip.

Since the executive branch orders the military, then I'm not too worried whether Kristol is trying to co-opt us or not (though will of course be on guard for it for other reasons).

I think you're correct that they'll do their best to co-opt us, but to suggest Rand is or will be co-opted is rather unfounded at this point... Hell, Kristol might even just be saying this to make us doubt Rand. That's what I'd do if I knew the opposition couldn't stand me.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Rand Paul (and the obviously organized online presence behind him),

Haha...

the one that needlessly cavorted with neo cons in a secret meeting before his senate election/GOP primary nomination

This has been disproven. You're 2 years behind on your smears.

and that Kristol is setting up to win .

Haha!

THE RINOS ARE TIRED OF THE CARCASS OF EVANGELICAL CONSERVATISM. To that end, they plan on using the momentum of the co-opted Ron Paul movement and the MSM frequent cries of "the country's culture has shifted left" to change the makeup of the party in their favor. Kristol wouldn't like Rand Paul my @!#. You guys are so convinced you got the inside angle u don't realize you're the fish being reeled in.

Rand Paul represents the opposite of RINO. Why would the RINO's want someone in there that is a repudiation of everything they believe?

Rand Paul will advance the new GOP, which is a rehashed version of liberventionism under the Cato / Reason mag Koch brothers faction. Ever wonder why that Ayn Rand movie even came out?

Justin Raimondo said it best, ....http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/09/23/the-hollow-man-rand-pauls-father-complex/

Justin Raimondo is an idiot. Everything he has predicted about Rand, including that quote, has been wrong.

Now the NeoCons are playing you, "Oh I wouldnt like a Rand Paul candidacy but hes Top Tier" etc etc... Nevermind that the ARI is frothing at the mouth against Muslims. You are being taken for a ride, hope you like the trip.

Okay...let me get it. Bill Kristol and the neocons secretly really want Rand because...why? They like his crusades against foreign aid? They like his non-interventionism? They like his budget? They like his vote to audit the FED?They like his opposition to the Patriot Act?

What is it about Rand do they like and secretly want? (Or is it more probable that Kristol knows that Rand is a major factor in 2016, and he was just reporting the truth?)

 

[Britannia]

No offense, but I think from Great Britain all you are seeing is a caricature. Not many Christians think Charles Darwin should be strung up from a lamp-post even if they don't believe in evolution. If Santorum had his way on all his social positions, that would probably just mean an America that looks like it did in the 1950's or 1960's- hardly a theocracy. I actually think people were happier back then because families and local communities were stronger. But to me it's like Humpty Dumpty. If society loses it's sense of right and wrong, all the king's horses and all the king's men (government) can't put it back together again.

No offence taken and none intended I can assure you. I was trying to mix some humour in along with some more serious observations, something may have been lost in the translation.

I certainly don't view all religious US conservatives in those terms but it's undeniable that such people do exist in quite large numbers and they do exert what I would describe as an undue influence during the primary process, forcing candidates, some of whom may not share their views, to adopt hardline positions on certain social issues that a majority of Americans find deeply unattractive. Mitt Romney was and is pro-choice but he was forced to adopt a pro-life position he didn't believe in in order to placate these people and to convince them he was "severely conservative". The clue is in the word severe. Most women find other people trying to dictate what they can and cannot do with their own bodies completely unacceptable, and that is why Obama won the female vote by a very large margin. And as I said the abortion issue is settled and it's highly unlikely that is going to change so it seems pointless and counter-productive of conservatives to keep bringing the subject up as a major issue during the primary process, it turns voters off in droves. Now, I'm pro-life, and I agree it's a moral issue, but if you believe you can improve peoples' morals by force, I'm sorry I don't believe that will work. You change peoples' morals by setting a good example and putting forward your argument to try and change their minds. If the current thinking of the majority of people continues to prevail then I'm afraid that's hard cheese. Forcing people to adopt my beliefs, however well intentioned they are, is completely against everything I stand for.

As for your comments re the 1950's, I'm sure some people were very happy when such schools of thought prevailed, white straight men in particular. However an awful lot of black people, gay people and women weren't treated very well at all during that time. Racism was rampant, gay people were forced to lead secret lives and when exposed were not treated well at all and the majority of women were expected to stay home cooking, cleaning and raising the children. If conservatives want to suggest restoring that as a social model for the country, while still constantly thumping on about abortion and immigration every primary season, they'd better look forward to a good long while in opposition.

 

[Pisces]

No offence taken and none intended I can assure you. I was trying to mix some humour in along with some more serious observations, something may have been lost in the translation.

I certainly don't view all religious US conservatives in those terms but it's undeniable that such people do exist in quite large numbers and they do exert what I would describe as an undue influence during the primary process, forcing candidates to adopt hardline positions on certain social issues that a majority of Americans find deeply unattractive. Mitt Romney was and is pro-choice but he was forced to adopt a pro-life position he didn't believe in to placate these people to convince them he was "severaly conservative". Most women find other people trying to dictate what they can and cannot do with their own bodies completely unacceptable, and that is why Obama won the female vote by a very large margin. And as I said the abortion issue is settled and it's highly unlikely that is going to change so it seems pointless and counter-productive of conservatives to keep bringing the subject up as a major issue during the primary process, it turns voters off in droves. Now, I'm pro-life, and I agree it's a moral issue but if you believe you can improve peoples' morals by force, I'm sorry I don't believe that will work. You change peoples' morals by setting a good example and putting forward your argument to try and change their minds. If the current thinking of the majority of people continues to prevail then I'm afraid that's hard cheese. Forcing people to adopt my beliefs, however well intentioned they are, is completely against everything I stand for.

As for your comments re the 1950's, I'm sure some people were very happy when such schools of thought prevailed, white straight men in particular. However an awful lot of black people, gay people and women weren't treated very well at all during that time. Racism was rampant, gay people were forced to lead secret lives and when exposed were not treated well at all and the majority of women were expected to stay home cooking, cleaning and raising the children. If conservatives want to suggest restoring that as a social model for the country, while still constantly thumping on about abortion and immigration every primary season, they'd better look forward to a good long while in opposition.

Have you ever been to the U.S.? Have you met and spoken with "such people", the people that you believe would lynch Charles Darwin if given the chance? Of do you base this just on what you've seen on the BBC?

As for the 1950's, I didn't mean to make a blanket statement agreeing with everything that went on during that decade. I just believe people on the whole were happier then. If you could go back in time and get rid of the racism, that would have been an ideal time. I think the break-up of families has hurt people a great deal in this country. You only have to read the stories that some of the men have posted on this forum to see how their lives and the lives of their children are affected by divorce. I also believe that the decline in the family has led to more child abuse and molestation as children are more often left without the protection of one or more of their parents. I didn't always feel this way but I have a teenage daughter and it is very sad seeing all the kids that have practically been abandoned by their parents. Many of them have no clue how to get along in the world.

I don't know if I made this clear earlier, but I don't really see that government can do anything to change this. I still have to say that I believe people were happier (and better educated) 50 or 60 years ago. Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You are being taken for a ride, hope you like the trip.