Perry v. Paul

[LadyGunSlinger]

My pick, at this point, would be Rand Paul but since the electoral process has been compromised it probably won't matter WHO gets the nomination.

Rand is no Ron.. he's not impressing me much with his flip flopping on immigration. He did a rally with none other than that Obama creep in Chicago.. trying to remember his name.. dark hair, hitler mustache.. It was all about open borders.. He caught a lot of shit about it on his facebook page..


Edit to add: David Axelrod

 

[hazlnut]

Perry is another dunce Gov from Tx.


Paul is the king of the Libertardians and Ayn Randroids.

 

[Jughead]

Not a Rick Perry fan. In 2011 he advocated for allowing a path to citizenship for illegals. He also said that he doesn't support a 2000 mile fence. If he offers amnesty to illegals, despite them breaking the law, he cannot guarantee that the cycle would not repeat itself. We'd be caught in a vicious circle of continuously offering amnesty to new rounds of illegals entering the country.

 

[Pete7469]

No one is going to be perfect for all of us.

As far as my perspective goes, the logistical issues of deporting all current illegal immigrants would be a motherfuck of a nightmare. We're talking about the replacement of 20+ million people.

People with criminal issues, fine, no problem.

People who've just sucked up welfare, I'll help load them on the trains.

People who've come in, gotten jobs, learned the language and committed no significant crimes?

I could be persuaded to allow them some sort of protected status.

Not citizenship, but a window to prove they're worthy to stay. From my perspective judging what my governor has said, I believe he's trying to mediate a solution.

 

[Kosh]

The fight continues, Perry criticizes Rand Paul on immigration:

Perry: Paul ?isolationist policies? are ?curiously blind,? ?wrong? ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Perry used the term isolationist, and it fits.

Well since this is a blog piece from the far left CNN not sure why anyone would take anything posted by a far left blog site as "facts".

Oh well more far left posters believing far left blog sites like CNN.

Go figure..

 

[Pete7469]

If you don;t know by now that there is a liberal bias in our media you in fact might be an isolationist.

If you don't know there is a bias in media you're a blithering imbecile who should have been killed in a high speed tricycle accident as a child.

 

[Peach]

Perry has three things going for him.

(1) He has created the best one-party system in a state since Huey Long in LA.

(2) He has the petroleum industry in his pocket.

(3) He has the 35% social conservative in Texas voting for him every time.

When he runs for the presidency again, not of that will protect him in next presidential primary season. His candidacy will destruct early, like it did last time.

Rand Paul has a warped philosophy, created by an atheist female that advocated promiscuity, abortion, selfishness, and greed.

While I dislike the anti-altruist stance of Ayn Rand, I must ask what you find so morally objectionable about hyr advocacy for promiscuity and abortion, as well as what exactly you identify as being Rand Paul's "warped philosophy".

Rand Paul is a follower of Ayn Rand; objectivism is warped, Fascists and Communists are objectivists. Paul denounces Medicare & the Civil Rights Act, yet gouges the treasury for all he can, to toss at Kentucky. Ayn Rand supported abortion & promiscuity, but Rand lackeys ignore those points, as they swoon over John Galt. John Galt is not unique, characters like him are a dime a dozen in romance novels. Unlike the standard "he man" Galt, Tom Joad, George Bailey, and Franklin Davis stand alone in fiction. To add to that, poor Ayn gave up fiction due to poor reviews, started her religion of Objectivism, much like L. Ron Hubbard gave up 3rd rate science fiction to dupe people out of money. One page of Pearl S. Buck is worth more than all the babble Rand ever scribbled.

 

[Peach]

CNN is a bullshit commie organization.

They're trying to wage a war inside the republicrat establishment.

Notice how there's NEVER a conflict among democrooks. No "mavericks", no "moderates", no "reaching across the isle".

It's because those of us on "the right" aren't robots. We have critical thinking skills, morality and ethics. We don't follow cults of personality. We're individuals and proud of it.

Rand Paul makes good arguments for staying out of foreign conflicts. Rick Perry makes good points about American interests and military power stabilizing global conflicts so that they don't blow up into something worse.

Democrooks do what they want when they have power, regardless of the consequences which are always worse than the problem. They manipulate the story and the bed wetters go along. When shit goes wrong they blame their enemies, that is Americans.

So as far as I'm concerned I'm more interested in who wins the debate in the arena of ideas between Paul/Perry than I am the script Al-CNN is ready to regurgitate.

Bullshit, prove it.

If you don;t know by now that there is a liberal bias in our media you in fact might be an isolationist.

Multinational corporations are real liberal, say those who watch a foreign news network that avoids three syllable words when possible. The Australian sold much of FOX to Saudis, but a very conservative atheist I knew explained the love of three paragraph "in depth" news on Fox: "FoxNews is SIMPLE, and they SHOW YOU the news with pictures!"

 

[Peach]

lol... You come off as a nutty CTer.

CTer? I looked it up, no, I reject most conspiracy theories. I do not like Ayn rand, though Rand Paul was NOT named for her, he has quoted her as a source of his political positions. I think Rand Paul is genuine in his beliefs, but disagree with them; of the two, I find Paul more likely to be sincere.

Well you don't even know what a fuckin isolationist is so why would I care who you feel is more sincere?

Let me break it down for you, like baby talk.... Isolationist would have to close off most or all trade. OPS right there you're awkwardly ignorant understanding of the word fails!

In fact, you might be a isolationist of you cause war with many countries. This cuts off contact by way of trade, communication, immigration, tourism and so on.

Or wait, do you disagree still???

Isolationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia for definitions of 21st century isolationism, that is a good one There are various types, of course, always have been. Early 20th century on, defined by NATIONS that refuse to understand foreign conflicts can impact their well being, a classic on the subject is "While England Slept" by Winston Churchill.

 

[S.J.]

My pick, at this point, would be Rand Paul but since the electoral process has been compromised it probably won't matter WHO gets the nomination.

Rand is no Ron.. he's not impressing me much with his flip flopping on immigration. He did a rally with none other than that Obama creep in Chicago.. trying to remember his name.. dark hair, hitler mustache.. It was all about open borders.. He caught a lot of shit about it on his facebook page..


Edit to add: David Axelrod

Didn't know about that stunt. The immigration thing is the problem I have with libertarians, I think they're a bit naive on that issue. Having said that, I'd still rather have Paul than another RINO, even if they could win. I don't think there is a perfect candidate but compared to Obama, ANY of them would be preferable, except maybe that fat blowhard pile of shit Christie.
PS, yes, Axelrod does look like Hitler. How appropriate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

.. You have no voice in Conservatism what so ever.

 

[blackhawk]

Whoever wins in 2016 all I can say is I truly hope they can change the disaster of the last eight years.

 

[Nutz]

If Rand Paul gets the nomination...he will move so much to the center...you won't even recognize him anymore.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

.. You have no voice in Conservatism what so ever.

You far righties are not conservatives and you have no real voice at all in the 2016 selection. Paul, Bush, Christie will be your ultimate choice. No Perry, no Santorum, no far right reactionary weirdoes need apply.

 

[Nutz]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

.. You have no voice in Conservatism what so ever.

You far righties are not conservatives and you have no real voice at all in the 2016 selection. Paul, Bush, Christie will be your ultimate choice. No Perry, no Santorum, no far right reactionary weirdoes need apply.

No idiot canadian either. Ted Cruz...teaper canadian.

 

[Pete7469]

Christie is preferable to all of them, with the exception of Huntsman.

Once again, no far right candidate can win.

.. You have no voice in Conservatism what so ever.

That is an indisputable fact.


rdean has a better grip on reality, and he's still tripping on a massive overdose of LSD-25 he took just before Jerry Garcia died.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bedwetting Pete is hysterical. You guys won't even be admitted to the national GOP convention.

 

[S.J.]

.. You have no voice in Conservatism what so ever.

You far righties are not conservatives and you have no real voice at all in the 2016 selection. Paul, Bush, Christie will be your ultimate choice. No Perry, no Santorum, no far right reactionary weirdoes need apply.

No idiot canadian either. Ted Cruz...teaper canadian.

Better than a communist Kenyan.

 

[Nutz]

You far righties are not conservatives and you have no real voice at all in the 2016 selection. Paul, Bush, Christie will be your ultimate choice. No Perry, no Santorum, no far right reactionary weirdoes need apply.

No idiot canadian either. Ted Cruz...teaper canadian.

Better than a communist Kenyan.

debateble