Victor Grey
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2011
- Messages
- 554
Yeah tell that to every successful political movement since ever.
Rand Paul Rocks the Senate!
- Thread starter Foundation_Of_Liberty
- Start date
Yeah tell that to every successful political movement since ever.
braane
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,198
I don't care what a candidate says. This is a doing thing. If a guy isn't doing the right things, then what he says isn't irrelevant (and vice versa) . I don't think endorsements have any real bearing on anything though.
I do see the failure in my logic though. You have a moral obligation to operate under the platform you run on, from a voter's stand-point.
I do see the failure in my logic though. You have a moral obligation to operate under the platform you run on, from a voter's stand-point.
Last edited:
trey4sports
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 12,588
Rand is just playing very smart politics. He is very delicately balancing his message between standard conservative points and liberty talking points. He is doing this to build a strong coalition for his run in '16. He did the politically advantageous move of endorsing Romney and i dont think for a second he regrets it.
Foundation_Of_Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,266
That is very messed up! You people are off your rocker! For you up is down, wrong is right. You are messed up! And, you are wrong.
Yes, because it's wrong to actually want to have some electoral success in the future, rather than just throwing our money away on a candidate who has no chance of winning.
Jamesiv1
Member
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 4,846
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to paulbot24 again."
Foundation_Of_Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,266
If you want a candidate that has a chance of winning vote for Obama.
Ron Paul's numbers are growing EXPONENTIALLY from election to election, don't you get that? You increase those numbers NOT by making him more like Obama, but by making the people more like Ron Paul! If you compromise your principles to "win" your winning will not be valuable. Winning is standing immovable where PRINCIPLE is concerned, otherwise it is losing, even if you "win" like Obama "won." Hitler also "won." See where it got him?
I don't believe that you "compromise principles" by endorsing candidates who don't have exactly the same views that you do. Ron Paul endorsed Michele Bachmann and he also endorsed Lamar Smith in Texas, the author of SOPA. Did Ron "compromise his principles" and "sell out" by making those endorsements? Rand has not "compromised his principles" in the way that he's voted in the Senate. He's voted the right way 99% of the time. I don't believe that Rand has compromised any of his core principles.
whoisjohngalt
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 1,314
It's always amusing to see those who ignore Ron's slew of bad endorsements while eviscerating Rand for his endorsement of Romney. For people who are so obsessed with presidential politics without consideration for down ballot races, you would imagine that they would be drooling at the chance to actually take the White House and bully pulpit at whatever cost. This is the cult of personality group. Wake up. It's not about a man. It's about doing whatever it takes to increase liberty. Not just in philosophy, but in practice.
Rand Paul 2016!!! I'm getting tingles in my leg thinking about it.
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
Speak for yourself. I have always supported him and so have many others. Not to mention the fact that he is winning over a number of other Republicans.
I'm sorry, but those who haven't even yet gotten over the endorsement, are not people I would trust one damn iota. By in large, they are the same people who didn't think Amash was "libertarian" enough and the same people who wouldn't lift a finger to even help Bentivolio or Amash online.
The good news is that this group of people do not represent the entirety of the liberty movement. Not by a long shot.
Rand hasn't changed a bit. If people think he has, it is only because they are now being forced to look at the many great things he has done and they are looking pretty damn ridiculous continuing their whine.
/end rant
whoisjohngalt
Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2010
- Messages
- 1,314
It was tough for me to see people illogically rejecting Rand for awhile. It seemed to be widespread on Facebook and the forums, but I finally realized that this is only the vocal minority and in no way represents the collective consciousness of the liberty movement.
My theory is that people who support Rand are those who are out there doing shit and don't have as much time to spend on their computers whining about him on these two mediums. Thank goodness, that is the great majority of people in the liberty movement.
We can't waste our time trying to convert the stubborn few who remain opposed to Rand anymore. The train has left the station.
Foundation_Of_Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,266
Ron did compromise. He is imperfect, according to his own admission. He never endorsed a clown/tyrant for president yet, though. Rand took his fathers imperfections and multiplied them by 10. I agree, his votes in the Senate (as far as I have seen) are pretty good. He is probably the best Senator we have. But he is still a "little bit pregnant." Will see.
Thanks.
Last edited:
Foundation_Of_Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,266
I still wouldn't vote for him as a president (because he believes in taxation a.k.a. theft) but he did a really good job on this filibuster! Go Rand!
Stand with Rand! Sen. Rand Paul takes determined stand against insanity of Obama’s claimed power to kill Americans
It’s now clear: Obama intends to use drone strikes to kill American journalists and political enemies
Rand Paul and the Filibuster
Ryan W. McMaken
Lew Rockwell Blog
March 7, 2013
People who follow me on Twitter know that I criticize Rand Paul. I do this not because I think he should be a clone of his father, and that he’s somehow “betrayed” Ron Paul’s followers. On the contrary, as I’ve noted before, I think Rand has always been quite up front about his non-libertarian views. I don’t think he’s attempted to deceive anyone on this.
My primary motivation in criticizing Rand is to illustrate the reality of his positions to many of his followers who seem to think that the libertarian movement should view Rand Paul as the next Ron Paul. They should not, regardless of the last name of the Senator from Kentucky, because Rand Paul is not, in my view, enough of a consistent defender of liberty. Nor is he enough of a known commodity to warrant all of the uncritical and blind support I see coming out of the so-called, and oxymoronically named, “libertarian conservatives.”
However, I have to give credit where it’s due, and Rand Paul’s filibuster today is good for at least two reasons.
First of all, it’s good because it’s a filibuster. The claim that the US Senate is “the world’s greatest deliberative body” has long been laughable. The Senate mostly rubber-stamps the edicts of the president when he’s in the same party as the Senate majority. Even when the majority is in a different party than the president, rarely is anything more than token resistence offered to the president’s appointments and treaties. This is made obvious by the fact that filibusters are so incredibly rare as are any actual rejections of the president’s nominees. The Senate was created as a check on both the foreign and domestic policy of the president, yet, we see virtually no such thing ever out of the Senate.
The fact that Senator Paul is willing to stop the government in its tracks for a few hours with a filibuster is a credit to him and probably stems from a decent understanding of what the Senate is supposed to do. Not only is the filibuster a good thing because it can obstruct the will of both senators and presidents, but it is also good because it serves to empower minority rights over the majority. This speech by the late Senator Robert Byrd, delivered back when it was the GOP that was trying to kill the filibuster, explains how the filibuster stands as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority and outlines many of the filibuster’s virtues.
Secondly, this particular filibuster is good because it has been specifically used to oppose and discredit one of the worst abuses of the presidency in many years. And that’s saying a lot, since the history of the presidency is primarily a history of usurpation. If presidents can claim the right to kill anyone they want at any time, as the current president has indeed done, then we have entered the final phase of complete lawlessness. I think Rand Paul is sincere in his opposition to this, and the fact that he is laboring nearly alone in his efforts to discredit this practice illustrates just how utterly useless and immoral the US Senate actually is. (I should note by the way, that I do not think the opposition to drone killings offered today by Sens. Rubio and Cruz is sincere.)
Moreover, Paul’s filibuster is simply an embarrassment to the regime which counts on -and gets!- nearly unanimous and bipartisan support of all its most horrible abuses from TARP to NDAA.
I’m glad that Rand Paul has finally found the issue that he is willing to go to the mat over. For all his inconsistencies and caving to the neocons on Iran and other issues, he’s still apparently one of only a tiny handful of politicians in Washington who is willing to say much at all about the final destruction of the Bill of Rights. While Paul may be conventional on many issues, his peculiarity and commitment on this issue is laudable. And, the fact that he stands nearly alone should frighten anyone who is still uninformed enough to think there is a functioning system of checks and balances in Washington. Paul’s stand should also serve as a source of everlasting shame to the so-called Progressives who obviously care not one iota for human rights, democracy or decent government at all, as long as one of their own is the current elected dictator.
Sen. Rand Paul: My filibuster was just the beginning
Stand with Rand! Sen. Rand Paul takes determined stand against insanity of Obama’s claimed power to kill Americans
It’s now clear: Obama intends to use drone strikes to kill American journalists and political enemies
Rand Paul and the Filibuster
Ryan W. McMaken
Lew Rockwell Blog
March 7, 2013
People who follow me on Twitter know that I criticize Rand Paul. I do this not because I think he should be a clone of his father, and that he’s somehow “betrayed” Ron Paul’s followers. On the contrary, as I’ve noted before, I think Rand has always been quite up front about his non-libertarian views. I don’t think he’s attempted to deceive anyone on this.
My primary motivation in criticizing Rand is to illustrate the reality of his positions to many of his followers who seem to think that the libertarian movement should view Rand Paul as the next Ron Paul. They should not, regardless of the last name of the Senator from Kentucky, because Rand Paul is not, in my view, enough of a consistent defender of liberty. Nor is he enough of a known commodity to warrant all of the uncritical and blind support I see coming out of the so-called, and oxymoronically named, “libertarian conservatives.”
However, I have to give credit where it’s due, and Rand Paul’s filibuster today is good for at least two reasons.
First of all, it’s good because it’s a filibuster. The claim that the US Senate is “the world’s greatest deliberative body” has long been laughable. The Senate mostly rubber-stamps the edicts of the president when he’s in the same party as the Senate majority. Even when the majority is in a different party than the president, rarely is anything more than token resistence offered to the president’s appointments and treaties. This is made obvious by the fact that filibusters are so incredibly rare as are any actual rejections of the president’s nominees. The Senate was created as a check on both the foreign and domestic policy of the president, yet, we see virtually no such thing ever out of the Senate.
The fact that Senator Paul is willing to stop the government in its tracks for a few hours with a filibuster is a credit to him and probably stems from a decent understanding of what the Senate is supposed to do. Not only is the filibuster a good thing because it can obstruct the will of both senators and presidents, but it is also good because it serves to empower minority rights over the majority. This speech by the late Senator Robert Byrd, delivered back when it was the GOP that was trying to kill the filibuster, explains how the filibuster stands as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority and outlines many of the filibuster’s virtues.
Secondly, this particular filibuster is good because it has been specifically used to oppose and discredit one of the worst abuses of the presidency in many years. And that’s saying a lot, since the history of the presidency is primarily a history of usurpation. If presidents can claim the right to kill anyone they want at any time, as the current president has indeed done, then we have entered the final phase of complete lawlessness. I think Rand Paul is sincere in his opposition to this, and the fact that he is laboring nearly alone in his efforts to discredit this practice illustrates just how utterly useless and immoral the US Senate actually is. (I should note by the way, that I do not think the opposition to drone killings offered today by Sens. Rubio and Cruz is sincere.)
Moreover, Paul’s filibuster is simply an embarrassment to the regime which counts on -and gets!- nearly unanimous and bipartisan support of all its most horrible abuses from TARP to NDAA.
I’m glad that Rand Paul has finally found the issue that he is willing to go to the mat over. For all his inconsistencies and caving to the neocons on Iran and other issues, he’s still apparently one of only a tiny handful of politicians in Washington who is willing to say much at all about the final destruction of the Bill of Rights. While Paul may be conventional on many issues, his peculiarity and commitment on this issue is laudable. And, the fact that he stands nearly alone should frighten anyone who is still uninformed enough to think there is a functioning system of checks and balances in Washington. Paul’s stand should also serve as a source of everlasting shame to the so-called Progressives who obviously care not one iota for human rights, democracy or decent government at all, as long as one of their own is the current elected dictator.
Sen. Rand Paul: My filibuster was just the beginning
Last edited:
Similar threads
