Erick Erickson defends John Roberts re: Obamacare SCOTUS decision

[Sola_Fide]

Nah, that was not what the Ron Paul revolution was all about. If that were the case, there wouldn't be this division now. Rand strategy might work, but it IS an innovation.

Where do you think the Iowa GOP takeover came from if not the Ron Paul Revolution? Is this something you think Ron didn't want to happen?

 

[TheTexan]

I still think you're comparing apples to oranges. The "Rand Paul" infiltration strategy is exactly what the Ron Paul Revolution has been about for the past 8 years: taking over the party from the ground up.

The difference is, when we started, we still had our principles intact

 

[jj-]

Where do you think the Iowa GOP takeover came from if not the Ron Paul Revolution? Is this something you think Ron didn't want to happen?

Taking it over while proudly proclaiming what you believe in is different from pretending to believe in something you don't and voting for sanctions to try to get along. It might work, but it's not what the Ron Paul Revolution has been about for the past 8 years. It's at the very least the Ron Paul Revolution 2.0.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The difference is, when we started, we still had our principles intact

What principle did Rand lose? Has he started voted differently since the endorsement?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Taking it over while proudly proclaiming what you believe in is different from pretending to believe in something you don't and voting for sanctions to try to get along. It might work, but it's not what the Ron Paul Revolution has been about for the past 8 years.

Well, I didn't say the Revolution was ALL about political involvement...that would be silly to say. That would ignore the educational aspect of Ron Paul. But as far as our education leads us to political action, we are implementing what we believe.

This is much different than saying political action is the basis of change. I definitely DON'T believe that. Change begins in the heart and head of the individual.

 

[TheTexan]

What principle did Rand lose?

I won't say he lost them... but rather he never had them in the first place... here's a short list, some of it borrowed

"I'm more reasonable than my father on these issues (concerning Israel and the Middle East)"

Voting for sanctions

Being okay with the Libya bill before the no-fly-zone, which had language supporting the rebels covertly, both operationally and with equipment/funding, as well as ousting Khaddafi

Voting for those crappy "Free Trade" agreements

introducing bills that create Public-Private Partnerships regarding the TSA/DHS... about the only thing worse than socialism is fascism

Oh, and that stupid bill legalizing the use of drones in the America

Revenue-neutral tax reform

I am not a libertarian

 

[jj-]

I am not a libertarian

To be fair, Rand said that he doesn't describe himself that way to not lead people to think that he is a member of the Libertarian Party.

 

[TheTexan]

 

[trey4sports]

he must have a new bank account in the cayman islands too....

 

[TheTexan]

I am not a libertarian

To be fair, Rand said that he doesn't describe himself that way to not lead people to think that he is a member of the Libertarian Party.

Not really, no... there's no way I'm giving him a pass on this. He's making it clear he's one of them, not us, is what he's doing

Pure libertarians, he says, believe the market should dictate policy on nearly everything from the environment to health care. Paul has lately said he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws, he'd vote to support Kentucky's coal interests and he'd be tough on national security.

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

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html#ixzz1z9RGJYxQ

 

[jj-]

Not really, no... there's no way I'm giving him a pass on this. He's making it clear he's one of them, not us, is what he's doing

Ok, but then you should find other reasons, because that "I'm not a libertarian" quote is useless since libertarian means different things and he specifically said he used it to communicate he is not a member of the Libertarian Party.

 

[TheTexan]

he specifically said he used it to communicate he is not a member of the Libertarian Party.

Did he? Because if so that's a load of bullshit. The article I just posted he explictly said he was against the libertarian positions.

You can make it clear that you're not a member of the Libertarian Party without taking a shit on liberty itself. He chose to lay a big fat turd on it

 

[economics102]

That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

Um, no.

And the fact that the SCOTUS just upheld Obamacare and left it for the GOP to repeal just makes it all the more stupid that the GOP intends to nominate the guy behind Romneycare. We're supposed to believe that this guy is going to lead a repeal of Obamacare if we elect him?

 

[dbill27]

I'm not sure what this has to do with Rand endorsing romney but several people here seem to think it's comparable. It's not in any way comparable. John Roberts is a supreme court justice who took an oath that he broke today if it's true that he was in some way playing politcs. Erick Erickson continues to be a complete power tool as usual, no surprise. But Rand Paul endorsing romney because he believes obama will drive us off an economic cliff is in no way comparable. If you want to disagree with Rand's decision then fine, but get real and don't go overboard.

 

[DGambler]

Phuck Erickson

 

[TheTexan]

I'm not sure what this has to do with Rand endorsing romney but several people here seem to think it's comparable. It's not in any way comparable. John Roberts is a supreme court justice who took an oath that he broke today if it's true that he was in some way playing politcs.

So in other words advancing the cause of tyranny is fine as long as it meets two conditions: a) you've got a "plan", and b) you don't break an oath

Cool. Gotcha

 

[Southron]

Man, the Republican establishment is rallying hard around Roberts.

Nothing would have prevented the justices from striking down the law AND limiting the commerce clause! I am so mad at this BS. Do not let these frauds get away with this spin.

They are making this man out to be a hero now! Wake up you ignorant Republican sheep!

 

[anaconda]

Any time Rand shits on liberty, "it's ok he has a plan"

Rand busts his ass for liberty on a daily basis.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Man, the Republican establishment is rallying hard around Roberts.

Nothing would have prevented the justices from striking down the law AND limiting the commerce clause! I am so mad at this BS. Do not let these frauds get away with this spin.

They are making this man out to be a hero now! Wake up you ignorant Republican sheep!

Couldn't agree more...

Chief Justice John Roberts was wrong to uphold Obamacare

 

[Sola_Fide]

Rand busts his ass for liberty on a daily basis.

Some people live in the bizarro world where Rand is not the most liberty oriented guy we have right now.