Who else is excited for Rand Paul's presidency?

[dblack]

The ONLY thing I could even care about Rand would be his outlook towards the legalization of cannabis.

But, I am sure he will filp-flop on that as soon as Rove/Koch step into the mix.

The fact that he's probably the least likely to do that is why Rove/Koch won't go near him.

 

[rightwinger]

More socialist hogwash. You define "free" how .......Orwellian Terms, of course.

.

Well, let's look at the record

At the time of our founding, blacks were slaves, Indians weren't citizens, women couldn't vote, non landowners couldn't vote........not what I would call free

By 1865, slaves were free but denied equal treatment, Indians were still being hunted, women had no vote......still not exactly free

By the 1920s, women received the vote, blacks had fewer freedoms than 1865, workers had no rights.........still a long way from freedom

By the 1950s, workers had full rights, women could vote but were excluded from most career paths, gays were openly beaten, blacks were subjected to government sanctioned domestic terrorism.......far from what I would consider free

By the 1980s, almost all jobs were open to women and minorities, gays were allowed to come out in the open.........now we were approaching freedom

Today, we have a black man as President, women have greater representation in most careers and the military, gays can openly serve in the military and can marry in almost a quarter of the states.......Yes, we are much more free today

Identify by Article , Section and Clause the Federal Constitution (1787) provisos which

1- mandated slavery

2-prevented women from voting

3-prevented women from choosing their own career paths

4- penalize homosexuals

5- prevented blacks from becoming president

As a matter of fact the dissenting opinion in "Dred Scott v. Sanford" reminded RACIST supreme Court Chief Justice Taney that their was no legal basis for the majority opinion. But people like you choose to believe that the US Supreme Court can be trusted to support the Constitution and our rights.


.

Sorry...not chasing new goalposts

Stay on topic. The topic is the amount of freedom we have today vs previous times. You raised the topic and challenged me to defend why we have more freedom today

Ball is in your court, my friend

Show where there was more freedom in previous generations

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS can be trusted far more than libertarian looniness.

More socialist hogwash. You define "free" how .......Orwellian Terms, of course.

.

Well, let's look at the record

At the time of our founding, blacks were slaves, Indians weren't citizens, women couldn't vote, non landowners couldn't vote........not what I would call free

By 1865, slaves were free but denied equal treatment, Indians were still being hunted, women had no vote......still not exactly free

By the 1920s, women received the vote, blacks had fewer freedoms than 1865, workers had no rights.........still a long way from freedom

By the 1950s, workers had full rights, women could vote but were excluded from most career paths, gays were openly beaten, blacks were subjected to government sanctioned domestic terrorism.......far from what I would consider free

By the 1980s, almost all jobs were open to women and minorities, gays were allowed to come out in the open.........now we were approaching freedom

Today, we have a black man as President, women have greater representation in most careers and the military, gays can openly serve in the military and can marry in almost a quarter of the states.......Yes, we are much more free today

Identify by Article , Section and Clause the Federal Constitution (1787) provisos which

1- mandated slavery

2-prevented women from voting

3-prevented women from choosing their own career paths

4- penalize homosexuals

5- prevented blacks from becoming president

As a matter of fact the dissenting opinion in "Dred Scott v. Sanford" reminded RACIST supreme Court Chief Justice Taney that their was no legal basis for the majority opinion. But people like you choose to believe that the US Supreme Court can be trusted to support the Constitution and our rights.


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The intellectual qualification for a Rand Paul supporter is you say 'freedom' no matter what the event or issue. It has to be one of the dumbest ideological frames in all of history. Think about any thing at all, and then say 'freedom' and you pretty much have the ideology's primary and secondary ideas summed up.

well, that's what they say, anyway. you can't be a libertarian and be anti-choice.

they're just dumb.

What is this "anti-choice" shit. We prefer "pro-life" and we don't label you as "pro-death".

Civil discourse and all, Jillian. I thought you were for that.

Anti-choice is the direct opposite of pro-choice, and both terms directly address the relevant issue,

whether or not a woman will have a legal option to choose to have an abortion, and when and how that option will exist, if it does exist.

 

[Contumacious]

Well, let's look at the record

At the time of our founding, blacks were slaves, Indians weren't citizens, women couldn't vote, non landowners couldn't vote........not what I would call free

By 1865, slaves were free but denied equal treatment, Indians were still being hunted, women had no vote......still not exactly free

By the 1920s, women received the vote, blacks had fewer freedoms than 1865, workers had no rights.........still a long way from freedom

By the 1950s, workers had full rights, women could vote but were excluded from most career paths, gays were openly beaten, blacks were subjected to government sanctioned domestic terrorism.......far from what I would consider free

By the 1980s, almost all jobs were open to women and minorities, gays were allowed to come out in the open.........now we were approaching freedom

Today, we have a black man as President, women have greater representation in most careers and the military, gays can openly serve in the military and can marry in almost a quarter of the states.......Yes, we are much more free today

Identify by Article , Section and Clause the Federal Constitution (1787) provisos which

1- mandated slavery

2-prevented women from voting

3-prevented women from choosing their own career paths

4- penalize homosexuals

5- prevented blacks from becoming president

As a matter of fact the dissenting opinion in "Dred Scott v. Sanford" reminded RACIST supreme Court Chief Justice Taney that their was no legal basis for the majority opinion. But people like you choose to believe that the US Supreme Court can be trusted to support the Constitution and our rights.


.

Sorry...not chasing new goalposts

Stay on topic. The topic is the amount of freedom we have today vs previous times. You raised the topic and challenged me to defend why we have more freedom today

Ball is in your court, my friend

Show where there was more freedom in previous generations

Now that you have admitted that the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (1787) DID NOT AUTHORIZE PAST TRANSGRESSIONS lets look at what FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS NOT THE CONSTITUTION are doing to Americans and which is being approved by the so-called Supreme Court:

Andy vs. the Patriot Act

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He admitted nothing of the sort, strange one. Show us how there was more freedom in previous generations. That is your goal post.

 

[rightwinger]

Identify by Article , Section and Clause the Federal Constitution (1787) provisos which

1- mandated slavery

2-prevented women from voting

3-prevented women from choosing their own career paths

4- penalize homosexuals

5- prevented blacks from becoming president

As a matter of fact the dissenting opinion in "Dred Scott v. Sanford" reminded RACIST supreme Court Chief Justice Taney that their was no legal basis for the majority opinion. But people like you choose to believe that the US Supreme Court can be trusted to support the Constitution and our rights.


.

Sorry...not chasing new goalposts

Stay on topic. The topic is the amount of freedom we have today vs previous times. You raised the topic and challenged me to defend why we have more freedom today

Ball is in your court, my friend

Show where there was more freedom in previous generations

Now that you have admitted that the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (1787) DID NOT AUTHORIZE PAST TRANSGRESSIONS lets look at what FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS NOT THE CONSTITUTION are doing to Americans and which is being approved by the so-called Supreme Court:

Andy vs. the Patriot Act

.

You are still running a red herring
Stay on the topic that you created

How are we less free than in the times I highlighted?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I can't say I'd vote for Rand right now. The sanctions on Iran, the aviation school ban for foreigners, and the half-measures on government regulations makes it highly unlikely.

Yeah. He hasn't impressed me yet. That's possibly not fair, because I'd probably be quite happy to hear any other senators raising some of the issues he's raised. But I think he's missing something crucial.

I suppose I understand why he believes he needs to 'play ball' for the time being. His dad 'suffered', ignored and practically irrelevant for most of his political career, specifically because he would not play along. But in the end, it was his greatest strength, and allowed him to parlay his 'benchwarmer' role in congress into a significant political faction, both in and outside of the Republican Party.

That's the spirit Rand needs to inherit from his father if he hopes to be a force for liberty in the Senate, or even running for president. Actually, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to see him running for president. Certainly not in 2016. I'd like to see him prove himself first.

The problem though is that it only culminated in a civil movement, but barely resulted in anything significant being done politically. Ron's biggest political claim to fame is the Fed audit, which still wasn't much of anything anyway.

At some point in time someone needs to do something to get a seat at the table, and for all we know that's what Rand is doing.

What if Rand went against sanctions for Iran? Does that get him any closer to a seat at the table?

I'm all for someone beating these guys at their own game. And if that takes doing a few things that would seem on the surface as "against" what we believe in, then so be it.

Do we want anything to change or not?

I'd love for things to change. I just don't see how going along to get along accomplishes it.

 

[SniperFire]

Yeah. He hasn't impressed me yet. That's possibly not fair, because I'd probably be quite happy to hear any other senators raising some of the issues he's raised. But I think he's missing something crucial.

I suppose I understand why he believes he needs to 'play ball' for the time being. His dad 'suffered', ignored and practically irrelevant for most of his political career, specifically because he would not play along. But in the end, it was his greatest strength, and allowed him to parlay his 'benchwarmer' role in congress into a significant political faction, both in and outside of the Republican Party.

That's the spirit Rand needs to inherit from his father if he hopes to be a force for liberty in the Senate, or even running for president. Actually, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to see him running for president. Certainly not in 2016. I'd like to see him prove himself first.

The problem though is that it only culminated in a civil movement, but barely resulted in anything significant being done politically. Ron's biggest political claim to fame is the Fed audit, which still wasn't much of anything anyway.

At some point in time someone needs to do something to get a seat at the table, and for all we know that's what Rand is doing.

What if Rand went against sanctions for Iran? Does that get him any closer to a seat at the table?

I'm all for someone beating these guys at their own game. And if that takes doing a few things that would seem on the surface as "against" what we believe in, then so be it.

Do we want anything to change or not?

I'd love for things to change. I just don't see how going along to get along accomplishes it.

You should at least go vote for that Libertariantard Gary.. whatever his name is.

Else, you are just a whiny *****.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The problem though is that it only culminated in a civil movement, but barely resulted in anything significant being done politically. Ron's biggest political claim to fame is the Fed audit, which still wasn't much of anything anyway.

At some point in time someone needs to do something to get a seat at the table, and for all we know that's what Rand is doing.

What if Rand went against sanctions for Iran? Does that get him any closer to a seat at the table?

I'm all for someone beating these guys at their own game. And if that takes doing a few things that would seem on the surface as "against" what we believe in, then so be it.

Do we want anything to change or not?

I'd love for things to change. I just don't see how going along to get along accomplishes it.

You should at least go vote for that Libertariantard Gary.. whatever his name is.

Else, you are just a whiny *****.

I suggest you worry about your own vote.

 

[Contumacious]

Sorry...not chasing new goalposts

Stay on topic. The topic is the amount of freedom we have today vs previous times. You raised the topic and challenged me to defend why we have more freedom today

Ball is in your court, my friend

Show where there was more freedom in previous generations

Now that you have admitted that the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (1787) DID NOT AUTHORIZE PAST TRANSGRESSIONS lets look at what FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS NOT THE CONSTITUTION are doing to Americans and which is being approved by the so-called Supreme Court:

Andy vs. the Patriot Act

.

You are still running a red herring
Stay on the topic that you created

How are we less free than in the times I highlighted?

Excellent

So you do realize that the gargantuan federal government has decided to ignore the Constitution and subject us to a massive Stasi.

.

 

[rightwinger]

Now that you have admitted that the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (1787) DID NOT AUTHORIZE PAST TRANSGRESSIONS lets look at what FEDERAL BUREAUCRATS NOT THE CONSTITUTION are doing to Americans and which is being approved by the so-called Supreme Court:

Andy vs. the Patriot Act

.

You are still running a red herring
Stay on the topic that you created

How are we less free than in the times I highlighted?

Excellent

So you do realize that the gargantuan federal government has decided to ignore the Constitution and subject us to a massive Stasi.

.

Still ducking?

 

[Contumacious]

You are still running a red herring
Stay on the topic that you created

How are we less free than in the times I highlighted?

Excellent

So you do realize that the gargantuan federal government has decided to ignore the Constitution and subject us to a massive Stasi.

.

Still ducking?

That is correct. There are presently over 2,400,000 prisoners in the US . That is more than Cuba, Venezuela and Cina.

.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contumacious is completely fail in this thread.

How are we less free today than in 1840, Conty?

RW has completely exposed the fallacy of your position.

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious is completely fail in this thread.

How are we less free today than in 1840, Conty?

RW has completely exposed the fallacy of your position.

.

 

[Liberal]

Contumacious is completely fail in this thread.

How are we less free today than in 1840, Conty?

RW has completely exposed the fallacy of your position.

That's unpossible!

 

[Liberal]

I'd love for things to change. I just don't see how going along to get along accomplishes it.

You should at least go vote for that Libertariantard Gary.. whatever his name is.

Else, you are just a whiny *****.

I suggest you worry about your own vote.

Hilarious..

I love how Neocons are just about the only ones on this forum and in most of the US whom find it acceptable to mock Libertarians for not voting for their choice..

That'll win them over SniperFart!

 

[Qantrill]

What's a Randy Paul?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contumacious is completely fail in this thread.

How are we less free today than in 1840, Conty?

RW has completely exposed the fallacy of your position.

That's unpossible!

 

[dblack]

You should at least go vote for that Libertariantard Gary.. whatever his name is.

Else, you are just a whiny *****.

I suggest you worry about your own vote.

Hilarious..

I love how Neocons are just about the only ones on this forum and in most of the US whom find it acceptable to mock Libertarians for not voting for their choice..

That'll win them over SniperFart!

It's the charm and good looks. We just can't resist!