"The Trouble with Rand Paul"

[bigrebnc1775]

To all you die hard young libertarians...... If libertarian was so popular why did both the Pauls have to hide in the republican party?

I am not a die hard libertarian but....
It's not about being popular it's about doing the right thing. Some times doing the right thing is not a popular thing.

 

[thanatos144]

To all you die hard young libertarians...... If libertarian was so popular why did both the Pauls have to hide in the republican party?

I am not a die hard libertarian but....
It's not about being popular it's about doing the right thing. Some times doing the right thing is not a popular thing.

In other words we know that a lot of what libertarians say are utopian bullshit and they need grounded people like conservatives to blame.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To all you die hard young libertarians...... If libertarian was so popular why did both the Pauls have to hide in the republican party?

I am not a die hard libertarian but....
It's not about being popular it's about doing the right thing. Some times doing the right thing is not a popular thing.

In other words we know that a lot of what libertarians say are utopian bullshit and they need grounded people like conservatives to blame.

Having limited federal government is not wanting to have a utopia

 

[thanatos144]

I am not a die hard libertarian but....
It's not about being popular it's about doing the right thing. Some times doing the right thing is not a popular thing.

In other words we know that a lot of what libertarians say are utopian bullshit and they need grounded people like conservatives to blame.

Having limited federal government is not wanting to have a utopia

No its not....Its the whole Anarchy thing that you want with it. Also it is the fact that most actually believe that America is the cause to wars around the world and insane asshole like Usama were just misunderstood guys that had to attack us.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In other words we know that a lot of what libertarians say are utopian bullshit and they need grounded people like conservatives to blame.

Having limited federal government is not wanting to have a utopia

No its not....Its the whole Anarchy thing that you want with it. Also it is the fact that most actually believe that America is the cause to wars around the world and insane asshole like Usama were just misunderstood guys that had to attack us.

Dude wake the fuck up libertarians are not Anarchist. There is nothing against the libertarians belief in a strong state level government. It's the big federal government that they have a problem with.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

In other words we know that a lot of what libertarians say are utopian bullshit and they need grounded people like conservatives to blame.

Having limited federal government is not wanting to have a utopia

No its not....Its the whole Anarchy thing that you want with it. Also it is the fact that most actually believe that America is the cause to wars around the world and insane asshole like Usama were just misunderstood guys that had to attack us.

Oh look, another person who has to create straw men arguments about libertarians.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"The Trouble with Rand Paul"

He should have kept his gig as a front-man (and, the band's wheel-man)????


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leohcvmf8kM]The B52's - Love Shack - YouTube[/ame]

.

.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

View shit man the crayon boy next post before he post's it
All his crayon talking points
BartCop's most recent rants - Political Humor and Commentary

 

[Oddball]

Need to take a shower after clicking on that link.

 

[Synthaholic]

To all you die hard young libertarians...... If libertarian was so popular why did both the Pauls have to hide in the republican party?

What does that even mean?

It means that neither of them won their seats as Libertarians. Duh!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

To all you die hard young libertarians...... If libertarian was so popular why did both the Pauls have to hide in the republican party?

What does that even mean?

It means that neither of them won their seats as Libertarians. Duh!

Nobody wins their seat as conservatives, liberals, or progressives either, so what's the point?

 

[Mad Scientist]

What does that even mean?

It means that neither of them won their seats as Libertarians. Duh!

Nobody wins their seat as conservatives, liberals, or progressives either, so what's the point?

But this kinda brings us back around to the whole point of my thread: If Rand is a Libertarian, then why did he endorse a guy who could be mistaken for a Democrat?

Ron Paul endorsed the Libertarian Party candidates in 2008, Rand Paul could have done the same this year.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It means that neither of them won their seats as Libertarians. Duh!

Nobody wins their seat as conservatives, liberals, or progressives either, so what's the point?

But this kinda brings us back around to the whole point of my thread: If Rand is a Libertarian, then why did he endorse a guy who could be mistaken for a Democrat?

Ron Paul endorsed the Libertarian Party candidates in 2008, Rand Paul could have done the same this year.

Well I think we can safely conclude that Rand is not a libertarian, given his vote on sanctions against Iran, so that point is essentially moot now.

Regardless, Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, in 2008, not the Libertarian Party candidate, Bob Barr. However, Rand and Ron are not the same person. Ron is a member of the Republican Party, but he's not afraid to buck the party and essentially do whatever he wants. Though he has endorsed some objectionable establishment Republicans in the course of his career as well, it should be pointed out. Rand Paul thinks being a "team player" with the Republican Party will benefit his political future, thus he endorsed the Republican nominee for President.

 

[Paulie]

Nobody wins their seat as conservatives, liberals, or progressives either, so what's the point?

But this kinda brings us back around to the whole point of my thread: If Rand is a Libertarian, then why did he endorse a guy who could be mistaken for a Democrat?

Ron Paul endorsed the Libertarian Party candidates in 2008, Rand Paul could have done the same this year.

Well I think we can safely conclude that Rand is not a libertarian, given his vote on sanctions against Iran, so that point is essentially moot now.

Regardless, Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, in 2008, not the Libertarian Party candidate, Bob Barr. However, Rand and Ron are not the same person. Ron is a member of the Republican Party, but he's not afraid to buck the party and essentially do whatever he wants. Though he has endorsed some objectionable establishment Republicans in the course of his career as well, it should be pointed out. Rand Paul thinks being a "team player" with the Republican Party will benefit his political future, thus he endorsed the Republican nominee for President.

One of Ron's most questionable moves was voting for Boehner for speaker.

At the end of the day, that's not much better than Rand endorsing Romney. Ron actually VOTED on this, and did his part in putting the gavel in a moron fraud conservative like Boehner's hand.

Everyone, even the Paul family, has their negatives. Nobody's perfect. If I judged everyone on one single move they make, I'd probably never find a single human being I liked.

It's the whole picture that you need to look at.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But this kinda brings us back around to the whole point of my thread: If Rand is a Libertarian, then why did he endorse a guy who could be mistaken for a Democrat?

Ron Paul endorsed the Libertarian Party candidates in 2008, Rand Paul could have done the same this year.

Well I think we can safely conclude that Rand is not a libertarian, given his vote on sanctions against Iran, so that point is essentially moot now.

Regardless, Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, in 2008, not the Libertarian Party candidate, Bob Barr. However, Rand and Ron are not the same person. Ron is a member of the Republican Party, but he's not afraid to buck the party and essentially do whatever he wants. Though he has endorsed some objectionable establishment Republicans in the course of his career as well, it should be pointed out. Rand Paul thinks being a "team player" with the Republican Party will benefit his political future, thus he endorsed the Republican nominee for President.

One of Ron's most questionable moves was voting for Boehner for speaker.

At the end of the day, that's not much better than Rand endorsing Romney. Ron actually VOTED on this, and did his part in putting the gavel in a moron fraud conservative like Boehner's hand.

Everyone, even the Paul family, has their negatives. Nobody's perfect. If I judged everyone on one single move they make, I'd probably never find a single human being I liked.

It's the whole picture that you need to look at.

Then there's the deal he made with the Republican Party where he won't endorse a primary challenge to an elected Republican.

 

[Paulie]

Well I think we can safely conclude that Rand is not a libertarian, given his vote on sanctions against Iran, so that point is essentially moot now.

Regardless, Ron Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate, Chuck Baldwin, in 2008, not the Libertarian Party candidate, Bob Barr. However, Rand and Ron are not the same person. Ron is a member of the Republican Party, but he's not afraid to buck the party and essentially do whatever he wants. Though he has endorsed some objectionable establishment Republicans in the course of his career as well, it should be pointed out. Rand Paul thinks being a "team player" with the Republican Party will benefit his political future, thus he endorsed the Republican nominee for President.

One of Ron's most questionable moves was voting for Boehner for speaker.

At the end of the day, that's not much better than Rand endorsing Romney. Ron actually VOTED on this, and did his part in putting the gavel in a moron fraud conservative like Boehner's hand.

Everyone, even the Paul family, has their negatives. Nobody's perfect. If I judged everyone on one single move they make, I'd probably never find a single human being I liked.

It's the whole picture that you need to look at.

Then there's the deal he made with the Republican Party where he won't endorse a primary challenge to an elected Republican.

Rand or Ron?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

One of Ron's most questionable moves was voting for Boehner for speaker.

At the end of the day, that's not much better than Rand endorsing Romney. Ron actually VOTED on this, and did his part in putting the gavel in a moron fraud conservative like Boehner's hand.

Everyone, even the Paul family, has their negatives. Nobody's perfect. If I judged everyone on one single move they make, I'd probably never find a single human being I liked.

It's the whole picture that you need to look at.

Then there's the deal he made with the Republican Party where he won't endorse a primary challenge to an elected Republican.

Rand or Ron?

Ron, though I'm sure Rand has made the same deal.

 

[Paulie]

Then there's the deal he made with the Republican Party where he won't endorse a primary challenge to an elected Republican.

Rand or Ron?

Ron, though I'm sure Rand has made the same deal.

Really? I'm not aware of that. I haven't noticed it anyway.

But if true, it makes sense even if in a strange way. You can't be ENTIRELY combative against the party. You have to at least somewhat play for the team if you want to hang around long enough to make your own impact.

Are you sure though? Ron's endorsed an awful lot of liberty candidates in primaries. None have ever been against GOP incumbents?

 

[Plasmaball]

It's called politics.

Tea Party guys already in ofice, like Rand Paul, is going to have to do a little kissing of Vinnie Vitalis's ass, if they have any chance of getting the agenda signed on to.

It's also called not cutting off your nose to spite your face. He's a passionate guy who has had the opportunity to get up close and personal to the true workings of the political game...he made a choice to concede some of what he'd want to get some of what he hopes for, rather than take a stand that would show no results in the end.

Yeah....Politics.

god you guess will excuse anything to back mittens..

 

[Pheonixops]

Take a stand just too give up the ground you took a stand on does not compute.

Good points, I was just trying to give him some credit. I remember seeing him and about two other Senators as the only ones taking a stand against some of those bills that infringe uopn our Civil Liberties.

Well shit time for another beer back too work.