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

[Christian Liberty]

Oh the rank, unfiltered hypocrisy:

I didn't post that. I was responding to it. And for the record, I didn't actually say a word about you specifically.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Oh the rank, unfiltered hypocrisy:

Somebody tell him he misquoted FreedomFanatic. I said both quotes.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I didn't post that. I was responding to it. And for the record, I didn't actually say a word about you specifically.

I know. I'll change it. I was only able to ever see that post because you quoted it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Lol, I'm not one of those trolls who derails threads, now let's talk about a completely unrelated hot button issue

Just teasing, but that gave me a good chuckle

I don't remember why that was brought up but I was curious about his reasoning. This thread is pretty much pointless now anyways...

 

[Christian Liberty]

I know. I'll change it. I was only able to ever see that post because you quoted it.

No problem, that's fine...

 

[Rudeman]

You know, this is where I intended to be, but I'm really turned off by the way Rand's supporters defend every gaffe and every troublesome comment.* After while those things add up and start to mean something.

*I realize I come off as the bad guy to Rand's supporters, but I consider it their own fault because I have to keep explaining over and over to several of his defenders why the gaffe-of-the-week is problematic.

I found this post funny because that is what a lot of Republicans would say about Ron Paul supporters.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I found this post funny because that is what a lot of Republicans would say about Ron Paul supporters.

Who gives a crap what those people think? I don't.

BTW, I thought we were all Ron Paul supporters here.

 

[Rudeman]

How would you feel when everytime you defended the first amendment for instance, everyone chastised you for wanting everyone to run around screaming profanities, sexually erotic comments, and all sorts of other misogynistic and racist remarks? Oh you're just a racist, misogynistic, pedaphile when you defend the first amendment! That's the same tortured and twisted logic people apply whenever you say you want to legalize prostitution, substances (aka drugs), or other activities that puritans don't like to have to admit exists and people have a right to engage in. So, yeah, your 'heaven on Earth' is HELL.

I would try to distance myself from those type of comments. Something like I support the 1st amendment but I certainly don't advocate racist/misogynistic etc. type of comments.


If I were a liberty politician then I'd probably end up having a thread accusing me of not really supporting the 1st amendment or something like that. Just because I wouldn't advocate those type of comments doesn't mean I would want to restrict your right to say them. Basically the goal is to disarm their attack before they attack you. I'm sure Rand is fully aware of the attacks that are directed, I mean even Ron wasn't really for full legalization in the way that someone like GJ was. I certainly can't speak for Ron but if I had to guess he also wouldn't advocate drug use or the scenario Rand mentioned.

 

[Rudeman]

Who gives a crap what those people think? I don't.

BTW, I thought we were all Ron Paul supporters here.

Did someone imply that someone wasn't a Ron Paul supporter? I'm certainly a Ron Paul supporter and I've already said I would prefer Ron over Rand.

I really don't care if you give a crap I just found the comment funny. You certainly don't have to share my sense of humor.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I would try to distance myself from those type of comments. Something like I support the 1st amendment but I certainly don't advocate racist/misogynistic etc. type of comments.


If I were a liberty politician then I'd probably end up having a thread accusing me of not really supporting the 1st amendment or something like that. Just because I wouldn't advocate those type of comments doesn't mean I would want to restrict your right to say them. Basically the goal is to disarm their attack before they attack you. I'm sure Rand is fully aware of the attacks that are directed, I mean even Ron wasn't really for full legalization in the way that someone like GJ was. I certainly can't speak for Ron but if I had to guess he also wouldn't advocate drug use or the scenario Rand mentioned.

You don't understand. Rand made the same twisted logic as the example I gave above. As for Ron, he was for full legalization of all substances lol...Gary doesn't even come close since he was only 'for' legalization of MJ and nothing else. Honestly, the people who make these ridiculous leaps of logic aren't going to be on your side anyways. Why even address their non-sense? I'd just roll my eyes at them like Ron did.

 

[Brett85]

Even beyond the states' rights aspect of this, I just don't see how marijuana legalization is even controversial anymore since even Pat Robertson has endorsed it. Is Pat Robertson now a "radical libertarian?"

 

[Rudeman]

You don't understand. Rand made the same twisted logic as the example I gave above. As for Ron, he was for full legalization of all substances lol...Gary doesn't even come close since he was only 'for' legalization of MJ and nothing else. Honestly, the people who make these ridiculous leaps of logic aren't going to be on your side anyways. Why even address their non-sense? I'd just roll my eyes at them like Ron did.

Gary was actively promoting MJ, Ron never promoted or advocated drug use. Rolling your eyes probably isn't the best thing to do when you're appealing for their support. As for why address the issue, because apparently it was a concern with the group he was discussing with.

Maybe I don't understand, it wouldn't be the first time.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I don't remember why that was brought up but I was curious about his reasoning. This thread is pretty much pointless now anyways...

Couldn't agree more!

 

[Thor]

This whole fucking thread is funny.... An opportunity to possibly make headway and win... self destruct mechanism kicks in high gear... fuck ya'll...

I will vote RAND and if he fucks me, so be it...

 

[Brett85]

Gary was actively promoting MJ, Ron never promoted or advocated drug use. Rolling your eyes probably isn't the best thing to do when you're appealing for their support. As for why address the issue, because apparently it was a concern with the group he was discussing with.

Maybe I don't understand, it wouldn't be the first time.

When did Gary Johnson "advocate" or "promote drug use?" It seemed like his position was the same as Ron's, which is simply that prohibition doesn't work.

 

[FrankRep]

This whole fucking thread is funny.... An opportunity to possibly make headway and win... self destruct mechanism kicks in high gear... fuck ya'll...

I will vote RAND and if he fucks me, so be it...

The part that libertarians seem to miss is that Rand Paul is doing an excellent job in the Senate.

 

[fr33]

This whole fucking thread is funny.... An opportunity to possibly make headway and win... self destruct mechanism kicks in high gear... fuck ya'll...

I will vote RAND and if he fucks me, so be it...

The funny thing is most people criticizing him are going to vote for him too. The controversy arises when we want to correct something he says wrong. How dare we speak truth to power. We must be Rand haters.

 

[Rudeman]

When did Gary Johnson "advocate" or "promote drug use?" It seemed like his position was the same as Ron's, which is simply that prohibition doesn't work.

GJ: You know I grew up smoking marijuana so that as a preface, what i understood right off the bat was that in no category was marijuana more dangerous than alcohol, that it was a terrific alternative to alcohol. Back in 1971, I, in my wildest dreams did not believe that it would still be illegal, that it would still be criminal, that people would still be going to jail 40 years later. And that’s what we have here.

 

[Christian Liberty]

When did Gary Johnson "advocate" or "promote drug use?" It seemed like his position was the same as Ron's, which is simply that prohibition doesn't work.

I don't think he promoted it, but IIRC he did use medical MJ. I don't really have any issue with that, but I can see why people thought he was "For" it in that case. Ron Paul has never seen the stuff so its even more ridiculous to try to say he's pro-MJ.

I found this post funny because that is what a lot of Republicans would say about Ron Paul supporters.

Who gives a crap what those people think? I don't.

BTW, I thought we were all Ron Paul supporters here.

Ron Paul isn't perfect, of course, but he cared about principle more than he did about politics. Yes, he did sometimes play the game, but only when doing so was not against his principles. Endorsements, for example, don't matter (I love the quote in TradCon's signature about this) and there's nothing per say unprincipled about endorsing an idiot. I don't care for Rand's Romney endorsement, since I thought Obama was the lesser of two evils (Although that's really like saying Hitler was less bad than Stalin because he didn't kill quite as many people.... that's honestly how it feels) and I'd probably rather get shot in the head than to seriously suggest anyone should vote for either of them. But... if someone had put a gun to my head, I'd have preferred Obama. If nothing else, Rand Paul actually has a shot with Obama winning, not so with Mitt. But, what was he supposed to do? All of Rand Paul's smart supporters ignored him when he endorsed Romney anyway... all the dumb ones actually agreed with him (Not that it was a smart political move... which is why Rand did it... but the dumb ones actually thought a Romney/Ryan vote was actually a good idea.) He didn't really lose anything by it. It was a smart political move.

Rand isn't just playing the game sometimes though, he's willing to play the game even if it means compromise. I don't like that, but I also understand why he's doing it. Its his business what he wants to do. All I can really say is that if he makes any serious foreign policy, gun control, or FED compromises, I'm not going to support him anymore. (For the record, even though I don't like it, when I say a serious compromise, I mean actually wanting to go to war with someone. I can live with the moderation on sanctions and bases, even though I don't particularly like it.)

You don't understand. Rand made the same twisted logic as the example I gave above. As for Ron, he was for full legalization of all substances lol...Gary doesn't even come close since he was only 'for' legalization of MJ and nothing else. Honestly, the people who make these ridiculous leaps of logic aren't going to be on your side anyways. Why even address their non-sense? I'd just roll my eyes at them like Ron did.

Gary Johnson was only for legalization of MJ, correct.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Even beyond the states' rights aspect of this, I just don't see how marijuana legalization is even controversial anymore since even Pat Robertson has endorsed it.

Why didn't Ron Paul embrace it in 1996? He ran pretty hard away from his past pro-drug stances while running for Congress again as a non-imcumbent:

Despite Morris' hard evidence, Paul continued to shade the truth weeks after the drug hullabaloo -- the Colorado County Citizen reported on a political rally in Columbus where Paul stated that he had not supported drug legalization. Though Paul's memory lapses have been frequent, they should not be blamed on excess marijuana use. In fact, he stresses that he's never seen an illegal drug and wrote in his newsletter that while he wants to legalize drugs, he does not condone their use: "Who knows... they might turn you into a raving liberal." Two weeks after Morris' ad underlining Paul's views on drug laws, Paul wore his white physician's smock in his own TV commercial, promising "to get the drugs out of town."

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/1996-11-01/525510/