Rand Paul Rocks the Senate!

[Jamesiv1]

I disagree. By sacrificing his principles (and make no mistake you sacrifice your principles when you indorse evil), Rand does disservice to his own credibility and to the cause of Liberty in general.

It is WRONG to indorse evil. You cannot promote the cause of Liberty by sacrificing its principles by indorsing an enemy of Liberty.

You cannot defend correct principles by violating them! You cannot defend Liberty by destroying Liberty. It is obvious to anyone with any reason or integrity left intact. It is basic. And Rand does not understand it. That's why I correctly said: He is a little bit pregnant with statism and tyranny. Just a touch of pregnancy. A little bit. If he does not change, this will grow until it destroys him.

Embrace it, you're stupid.

"we cannot heal or change what we will not acknowledge"

1-800-461-8826 <-- SA meeting hotline

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Embrace it, you're stupid.

"we cannot heal or change what we will not acknowledge"

1-800-461-8826 <-- SA meeting hotline

Embrace it, you're stupid.

"we cannot heal or change what we will not acknowledge"

1-800-461-8826 <-- SA meeting hotline

 

[opal]

If.. and it's a big IF Ron wants to run for '16 - I'd love to be a fly on the wall at that dinner table discussion with him and Rand. And.. yes.. I'd be behind Ron 100%

 

[Dystopian]

I think after the Romney endorsement debacle, Rand figured out real quickly who butters his bread. I've seen him start talking much more libertarian after that backlash. He realized that he couldn't just use us as a stepping stone to power, but needed our continued support to keep him relevant. He's walking a mighty tight rope, but as long as he's slightly leaning towards our side, then I will support him.

 

[Origanalist]

I think after the Romney endorsement debacle, Rand figured out real quickly who butters his bread. I've seen him start talking much more libertarian after that backlash. He realized that he couldn't just use us as a stepping stone to power, but needed our continued support to keep him relevant. He's walking a mighty tight rope, but as long as he's slightly leaning towards our side, then I will support him.

Seems to me he's been leaning more than just slightly.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I think after the Romney endorsement debacle, Rand figured out real quickly who butters his bread. I've seen him start talking much more libertarian after that backlash. He realized that he couldn't just use us as a stepping stone to power, but needed our continued support to keep him relevant. He's walking a mighty tight rope, but as long as he's slightly leaning towards our side, then I will support him.

Good point. But if he leans "slightly" that is exactly the amount of support he will get from me "slightly."

 

[paulbot24]

Take a look at the way he eviscerates this woman on the subject of pro-choice and light bulbs. He allows her to admit that she is pro-choice and then annihlates her on our lack of choices on simple decisions such as light bulbs.

Then if you still are wondering about his "leaning", listen to him destroy our failed foreign policy in just giving away money, and to terrible "allies" as well.

The full video of his criticism of foreign aid, especially in response to Hillary wanting to increase Egypt's aid is worth watching.

Rand Paul 2016

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Take a look at the way he eviscerates this woman on the subject of pro-choice and light bulbs. He allows her to admit that she is pro-choice and then annihlates her on our lack of choices on simple decisions such as light bulbs.

Then if you still are wondering about his "leaning", listen to him destroy our failed foreign policy in just giving away money, and to terrible "allies" as well.

The full video of his criticism of foreign aid, especially in response to Hillary wanting to increase Egypt's aid is worth watching.

Rand Paul 2016

This is good stuff. I like how he spoke to them. I did not however like that he endorsed and campaigned for a man who opposes all these measures, and at the time was the opponent of his father! That is compromise of principle when you endorse the candidate who opposes almost every key principle of Liberty! That does not speak of integrity to me. But you are right, there is probably no better senator at the time, which does not speak much because almost all of them are crooks. And it does not yet mean that I will vote for him, unless he alignes himself against all taxation like Ron Paul did. Taxation = agressive violance = evil = injustice. I cannot support it.

Cheers.

 

[Jamesiv1]

paulbot24's two videos above

Rand Paul kicks ass - with pretty much every step he takes.

I don't give a frig who he endorses - endorsements mean nothing. What matters is whose ass he's kicking in Congress, and how he votes.

Rock on Rand.

 

[paulbot24]

It takes a great deal of integrity and principles to stand up, on the Senate floor, and denounce your fellow Senators for being arrogant and reckless. He said he would endorse the eventual nominee and that just happened to be Romney. He never endorsed Romney's character or said he was a man of ______________, he endorsed the nominee as he said he would. That is integrity. He called them the fuck out, just like his dad taught him to do right there in the Capitol building.

 

[Brett85]

I did not however like that he endorsed and campaigned for a man who opposes all these measures, and at the time was the opponent of his father!

Can we not be crazy and admit that Ron had a 0% chance of winning the Republican nomination at the time Rand made his endorsement? Romney had already accumulated enough delegates to win the nomination, and Ron had even sent out an email admitting that he wasn't going to be the Republican nominee. Anyone who thinks that Rand somehow cost Ron the GOP nomination is completely out of their mind.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Can we not be crazy and admit that Ron had a 0% chance of winning the Republican nomination at the time Rand made his endorsement? Romney had already accumulated enough delegates to win the nomination, and Ron had even sent out an email admitting that he wasn't going to be the Republican nominee. Anyone who thinks that Rand somehow cost Ron the GOP nomination is completely out of their mind.

To me it is irrelevant whether or not Rand caused his Dad the nomination, but he definitely caused himself a loss of trust, and compromised his integrity, at least in part. It was wrong. It was not good. It was a mistake. He would have had much more fervent support by the people had he not compromised against the truth. I say it again: how can you say "I am against murder" when you campaign for Freddy Krueger? It is a blatant contradiction. He would have been much better off supporting his Dad to the end. That would have given him true credibility, and greater support of the people. Yet he cast his lot with corrupt republicans instead. Not wise; in his bones he must know that. That was stupid!

 

[Brett85]

To me it is irrelevant whether or not Rand caused his Dad the nomination, but he definitely caused himself a loss of trust, and compromised his integrity, at least in part. It was wrong. It was not good. It was a mistake. He would have had much more fervent support by the people had he not compromised against the truth. I say it again: how can you say "I am against murder" when you campaign for Freddy Krueger? It is a blatant contradiction. He would have been much better off supporting his Dad to the end. That would have given him true credibility, and greater support of the people. Yet he cast his lot with corrupt republicans instead. Not wise; in his bones he must know that. That was stupid!

...

 

[Brett85]

To me it is irrelevant whether or not Rand caused his Dad the nomination, but he definitely caused himself a loss of trust, and compromised his integrity, at least in part. It was wrong. It was not good. It was a mistake. He would have had much more fervent support by the people had he not compromised against the truth. I say it again: how can you say "I am against murder" when you campaign for Freddy Krueger? It is a blatant contradiction. He would have been much better off supporting his Dad to the end. That would have given him true credibility, and greater support of the people. Yet he cast his lot with corrupt republicans instead. Not wise; in his bones he must know that. That was stupid!

He supported his dad until all of the primaries were over. Mitt Romney was going to be the nominee at that point. If Rand hadn't endorsed Romney, he would have no chance at all to win the GOP nomination in 2016. None. He would've been seen as a traitor to the party and wouldn't have received any more support than Ron received in the primaries. Rand is trying to reach out to a much broader base than Ron reached and os trying to achieve the electoral success that Ron never achieved. The fact that many people here seem to have no idea how politics works is just astonishing to me.

 

[paulbot24]

To me it is irrelevant whether or not Rand caused his Dad the nomination, but he definitely caused himself a loss of trust, and compromised his integrity, at least in part. It was wrong. It was not good. It was a mistake. He would have had much more fervent support by the people had he not compromised against the truth. I say it again: how can you say "I am against murder" when you campaign for Freddy Krueger? It is a blatant contradiction. He would have been much better off supporting his Dad to the end. That would have given him true credibility, and greater support of the people. Yet he cast his lot with corrupt republicans instead. Not wise; in his bones he must know that. That was stupid!

There's a reason why it is called politics....... You'll notice there was an "R" next to Ron's name as well if you want to talk about casting lots with the corrupt and we all know Ron is not a part of that Boy Scout club of corruption. If you're waiting on the fence for something better.....well get comfortable. Rand is one of ours and he can speak neocon. The only way to defeat the "Here, have some free candy with your free Obamaphone" party.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

He supported his dad until all of the primaries were over. Mitt Romney was going to be the nominee at that point.

That is irrelevant to the point I was making.

If Rand hadn't endorsed Romney, he would have no chance at all to win the GOP nomination in 2016. None. He would've been seen as a traitor to the party and wouldn't have received any more support than Ron received in the primaries.

I would disagree with that. The momentum of Ron Paul is growing exponentially despite, and most probably BECAUSE of the fact that he never indorses a crook or a tyrant for president. Rand would have ridden this wave his Father rode if he had stuck with the truth.

Rand is trying to reach out to a much broader base than Ron reached and os trying to achieve the electoral success that Ron never achieved.

Surely Obama is reaching to a broader base now than Ron Paul ever did. That is the problem. You need to CONVERT people to the correct principles, and you CANNOT do so by endorsing the man who tramples upon them! Get it? That is the point.

 

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

There's a reason why it is called politics....... You'll notice there was an "R" next to Ron's name as well if you want to talk about casting lots with the corrupt and we all know Ron is not a part of that Boy Scout club of corruption. If you're waiting on the fence for something better.....well get comfortable. Rand is one of ours and he can speak neocon. The only way to defeat the "Here, have some free candy with your free Obamaphone" party.

You cannot defeat false principles, and promote the Correct ones, by endorsing the candidate who tramples upon them. That is the point. The goal is not to get the broader support of the sheeple by becoming more like Obama, but to CHANGE the sheeple by making them more like Ron Paul. You cannot do so by endorsing the candidate who stands, in most parts, for the exact opposite of Correct Principles! That is a fact! Neither Rand nor you seem to understand this simple truth. At least Ron seem to understand it. So should you.

 

[Brett85]

I would disagree with that. The momentum of Ron Paul is growing exponentially despite, and most probably BECAUSE of the fact that he never indorses a crook or a tyrant for president. Rand would have ridden this wave his Father rode if he had stuck with the truth.

Surely Obama is reaching to a broader base now than Ron Paul ever did. That is the problem. You need to CONVERT people to the correct principles, and you CANNOT do so by endorsing the man who tramples upon them! Get it? That is the point.

Many of the people who support Ron Paul are independents and Democrats, and many of them didn't even vote in the GOP primary. In order for Rand Paul to have any chance to win the GOP primary, he has to actually win over rank and file GOP voters. He isn't going to do that by refusing to endorse the GOP presidential candidate and get accused of helping President Obama get re-elected.

Rand Paul does have the correct principles. His voting record in Congress proves that, and that's all that matters. Endorsing someone does not mean that you agree with all of their positions! Rand Paul criticized Romney multiple times during the general election when Romney said something he disagreed with.

 

[paulbot24]

You cannot defeat false principles, and promote the Correct ones, by endorsing the candidate who tramples upon them. That is the point. The goal is not to get the broader support of the sheeple by becoming more like Obama, but to CHANGE the sheeple by making them more like Ron Paul. You cannot do so by endorsing the candidate who stands, in most parts, for the exact opposite of Correct Principles! That is a fact! Neither Rand nor you seem to understand this simple truth. At least Ron seem to understand it. So should you.

He said he would endorse the EVENTUAL nominee, as in, even if it happened to be Herman Cain or even Newt fucking Gingrich. He said this before the primaries. Rand Paul stands for liberty and freedom. If not Rand, then who are you waiting for? Or are you going to lead all of us "sheeple" to it yourself? This herd of cats division BS is what is holding us back. You are waiting for the perfect, principled, virtuous, blah blah who exactly to lead us? In the world of politics? We need to get real, look in the mirror, and realize that waiting around for the "Golden Child" is not going to lead us anywhere but holding the bag in the waiting room, broke and whining.

Rand Paul 2016!!!!

 

[Brett85]

He said he would endorse the EVENTUAL nominee, as in, even if it happened to be Herman Cain or even Newt fucking Gingrich. He said this before the primaries. Rand Paul stands for liberty and freedom. If not Rand, then who are you waiting for? Or are you going to led all of us "sheeple" to it yourself? This herd of cats division BS is what is holding us back. You are waiting for the perfect, principled, virtuous, blah blah who exactly to lead us? In the world of politics? We need to get real, look in the mirror, and realize waiting around for the "Golden Child" is not going to lead us anywhere but holding the bag in the waiting room, broke and whining.

Rand Paul 2016!!!!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to paulbot24 again."