"The Trouble with Rand Paul"

We depend on Libertarians like Rand Paul to protect us from Big Government.

So when he endorsed the Surveillance State, he proved to be no Libertarian at all - he's just another Big Government Republican.

And

Big Government Republicans don't merely want a Washington big enough to control the 50 states, they want a Washington big enough to control several continents. When George Bush said he wanted Washington to rebuild the greater middle east, the Libertarians should have taken a stand. Remember: the Libertarians tell us that Washington can't run a laundromat. So how in the hell can they rebuild the Arab world.

Don't Republicans get it? Washington can't save the world.

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help". This is the Republican mantra.

When George Bush gave big government the authority to track the phone and internet communications of American citizens, the Libertarians should have stood up to them. The Tea Party should have protested the growth of Government power.

They didn't.

Why do Republicans always make Washington bigger? Why do they put so much power in Washington? Why do they give Washington so much money? Only a Republican could create the largest, most secretive, most expensive beuraucracy in history > Homeland Security.

A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

The Libertarians and the Tea Party don't, in the end, won't criticize Big Government when the GOP is in charge.

When President Romney takes office, we will not hear a peep from Rand Paul or the Tea Party. Everybody knows this.
 
Last edited:
We depend on Libertarians like Rand Paul to protect us from Big Government.

So when he endorses the Surveillance State, he proved to be no Libertarian at all - he's just another Big Government Republican.

And

Big Government Republicans don't merely want a Washington big enough to control the 50 states, they want a Washington big enough to control several continents. When George Bush said he wanted Big Government to rebuild the greater middle east, the Libertarians should have taken a stand. Remember: the Libertarians tell us that Washington can't run a laundromat. So how in the hell can they rebuild the Arab world.

Don't Republicans get it? Washington can't save the world.

Why do Republicans always make Washington bigger? Why do they put so much power in Washington? Why do they give Washington so much money? Why did Bush create the largest, most secretive, most expensive beuraucracy in history > Homeland Security.

A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

The Libertarians and the Tea Party don't, in the end, criticize Big Government. They support Big Government Conservatism. When President Romney takes office, we will not hear a peep from Rand Paul or the Tea Party. They are props of big government. Everybody knows this.

This remains to be seen. We haven't seen Rand in action with a Rep president, so I'm withholding complete judgement on him until that time.

That's how we'll see just how far the apple might have fallen from the tree.
 
There is a reason for it. Don't call him a sellout yet. We have the plan this time.
Let us be reasonable and unified to the process of unemploying the worst human being in the WH.
 
We depend on Libertarians like Rand Paul to protect us from Big Government.

So when he endorses the Surveillance State, he proved to be no Libertarian at all - he's just another Big Government Republican.

And

Big Government Republicans don't merely want a Washington big enough to control the 50 states, they want a Washington big enough to control several continents. When George Bush said he wanted Washington to rebuild the greater middle east, the Libertarians should have taken a stand. Remember: the Libertarians tell us that Washington can't run a laundromat. So how in the hell can they rebuild the Arab world.

Don't Republicans get it? Washington can't save the world.

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help". This is the Republican mantra.

When George Bush gave big government the authority to track the phone and internet communications of American citizens, the Libertarians should have stood up to them. The Tea Party should have protested the growth of Government power.

They didn't.

Why do Republicans always make Washington bigger? Why do they put so much power in Washington? Why do they give Washington so much money? Only a Republican could create the largest, most secretive, most expensive beuraucracy in history > Homeland Security.

A hidden world, growing beyond control | washingtonpost.com

The Libertarians and the Tea Party don't, in the end, won't criticize Big Government when the GOP is in charge.

When President Romney takes office, we will not hear a peep from Rand Paul or the Tea Party. Everybody knows this.

Libertarians don't criticize big government when the GOP is in charge? Get real.
 
Yeah....Politics.

Isn't politics as usual that got to where we are now?

There's nothing "as usual" about Rand's politics. He's by far the most maverick member of the senate. When SOPA, Patriot Act, etc are breathing down our necks it was Rand there to step up and go to bat for us.

How can someone who is so different politically endorse the other person.

It's like Gandhi endorsing Saddam.
 
Rand Paul might have done some good work trying to filibuster the Patriot Act, but endorsing Mitt Romney goes beyond the pale. The NDAA is Romney’s most egregious transgression against liberty, but not far behind are his desire to start a war against Iran, to increase military spending, to start a trade war with China and his belief that corporations are people.

Yet the vast majority of libertarians will vote for Romney this fall.

This is one of many reasons why libertarianism will never be taken seriously by the general voting public, forever relegated to the political fringe.
 
Isn't politics as usual that got to where we are now?

There's nothing "as usual" about Rand's politics. He's by far the most maverick member of the senate. When SOPA, Patriot Act, etc are breathing down our necks it was Rand there to step up and go to bat for us.

How can someone who is so different politically endorse the other person.

It's like Gandhi endorsing Saddam.

You're putting something as simple as an endorsement on way too high a pedestal. It's just a statement. It's not an action like voting on legislation. It's a stupid little statement that may or may not have any tangible effect either way.

It very well could be something Rand could stomach doing for the purpose of gaining a stronger foothold in his journey through the ranks to fight the machine.

It's pointless to judge and sentence him right now, because the motive is completely unknown.
 
Rand Paul might have done some good work trying to filibuster the Patriot Act, but endorsing Mitt Romney goes beyond the pale. The NDAA is Romney’s most egregious transgression against liberty, but not far behind are his desire to start a war against Iran, to increase military spending, to start a trade war with China and his belief that corporations are people.

Yet the vast majority of libertarians will vote for Romney this fall.

This is one of many reasons why libertarianism will never be taken seriously by the general voting public, forever relegated to the political fringe.

This is incorrect. I think the vast majority of libertarians will not vote at all. However, how would we measure the number of libertarians who do vote for Romney? It's all unprovable speculation.
 
Rand Paul might have done some good work trying to filibuster the Patriot Act, but endorsing Mitt Romney goes beyond the pale. The NDAA is Romney’s most egregious transgression against liberty, but not far behind are his desire to start a war against Iran, to increase military spending, to start a trade war with China and his belief that corporations are people.

Yet the vast majority of libertarians will vote for Romney this fall.

This is one of many reasons why libertarianism will never be taken seriously by the general voting public, forever relegated to the political fringe.

This is incorrect. I think the vast majority of libertarians will not vote at all. However, how would we measure the number of libertarians who do vote for Romney? It's all unprovable speculation.

That's kind of why I want to vote for Johnson. I want to be measurable against Romney and Obama.
 
There's nothing "as usual" about Rand's politics. He's by far the most maverick member of the senate. When SOPA, Patriot Act, etc are breathing down our necks it was Rand there to step up and go to bat for us.

How can someone who is so different politically endorse the other person.

It's like Gandhi endorsing Saddam.

You're putting something as simple as an endorsement on way too high a pedestal. It's just a statement. It's not an action like voting on legislation. It's a stupid little statement that may or may not have any tangible effect either way.

It very well could be something Rand could stomach doing for the purpose of gaining a stronger foothold in his journey through the ranks to fight the machine.

It's pointless to judge and sentence him right now, because the motive is completely unknown.

If Rand is endorsing him isn't hew asking people too vote for Romney?
 
How can someone who is so different politically endorse the other person.

It's like Gandhi endorsing Saddam.

You're putting something as simple as an endorsement on way too high a pedestal. It's just a statement. It's not an action like voting on legislation. It's a stupid little statement that may or may not have any tangible effect either way.

It very well could be something Rand could stomach doing for the purpose of gaining a stronger foothold in his journey through the ranks to fight the machine.

It's pointless to judge and sentence him right now, because the motive is completely unknown.

If Rand is endorsing him isn't hew asking people too vote for Romney?

No, it's him saying he supports him in November. He never said anything about others voting for him. That's for Rand's supporters to decide on their own.
 
Yet the vast majority of libertarians will vote for Romney this fall.

This is one of many reasons why libertarianism will never be taken seriously by the general voting public, forever relegated to the political fringe.

This is incorrect. I think the vast majority of libertarians will not vote at all. However, how would we measure the number of libertarians who do vote for Romney? It's all unprovable speculation.

That's kind of why I want to vote for Johnson. I want to be measurable against Romney and Obama.

I can understand that, but I can't bring myself to do it. I vote for the person that I want to be elected. I don't want Gary Johnson to be elected.
 
This is incorrect. I think the vast majority of libertarians will not vote at all. However, how would we measure the number of libertarians who do vote for Romney? It's all unprovable speculation.

That's kind of why I want to vote for Johnson. I want to be measurable against Romney and Obama.

I can understand that, but I can't bring myself to do it. I vote for the person that I want to be elected. I don't want Gary Johnson to be elected.

I don't either, but I know he won't be elected. To me it's different than voting Romney to not get Obama. There's a risk Romney could win there.
 
I'm still not even sure what I'm doing myself. My first vote ever was for Ron, and since then I've only ever voted for what I actually wanted, so it would probably be a little tough to vote for another reason.

I just want these bastards to know that there's good amount of voters out there who aren't fooled.
 
I'm still not even sure what I'm doing myself. My first vote ever was for Ron, and since then I've only ever voted for what I actually wanted, so it would probably be a little tough to vote for another reason.

I just want these bastards to know that there's good amount of voters out there who aren't fooled.

I think if pretty much nobody showed up to vote then they'd probably get that message.
 
You're putting something as simple as an endorsement on way too high a pedestal. It's just a statement. It's not an action like voting on legislation. It's a stupid little statement that may or may not have any tangible effect either way.

It very well could be something Rand could stomach doing for the purpose of gaining a stronger foothold in his journey through the ranks to fight the machine.

It's pointless to judge and sentence him right now, because the motive is completely unknown.

If Rand is endorsing him isn't hew asking people too vote for Romney?

No, it's him saying he supports him in November. He never said anything about others voting for him. That's for Rand's supporters to decide on their own.

Paulie please don't go there I'm midway through my second case and the BS was just a little deep.:lol:
 
I'm still not even sure what I'm doing myself. My first vote ever was for Ron, and since then I've only ever voted for what I actually wanted, so it would probably be a little tough to vote for another reason.

I just want these bastards to know that there's good amount of voters out there who aren't fooled.

I think if pretty much nobody showed up to vote then they'd probably get that message.

We need a "none of the above" campaign like in Brewsters Millions.
 
If Rand is endorsing him isn't hew asking people too vote for Romney?

No, it's him saying he supports him in November. He never said anything about others voting for him. That's for Rand's supporters to decide on their own.

Paulie please don't go there I'm midway through my second case and the BS was just a little deep.:lol:
I've been following Rand for 5 years now, since before most people even knew of Ron. I'm sorry but I'm not going to stop on a dime and jump right on the 'sell out' bandwagon, which I'm sure is probably packed pretty tight with people who've only known of Rand for a year or 2.

My point is I'm willing to give the guy leeway that I wouldn't give to anyone else.
 

Forum List

Back
Top