Rand Paul...I think he's better than Ron

[Uriel999]

I in no way in this thread want to diminish the life long career and work that Dr. Paul has accomplished throughout his life. When he speaks on television it is like like pure sound gold. However, I've come to the conclusion that at least when it comes to speaking, his son Rand while inexperienced is already working more politically than his father. Ron is established and isn't going anywhere (despite media remarks) and just cuts to the chase and says whats one his mind which while amazing and has done wonders for us all here...Rand is clearly a superior politician where Ron is a great philosopher. Ron should be very proud. He's raised a son that has the potential to outdo himself. Isn't that what every parent wants? A son/daughter to do even better than he/she had accomplished in life? Seriously, go Rand Go...

YouTube - Will you support the winner of the primary no matter what? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAaKePjE4QE&feature=player_embedded)

[LibertyEagle]

He speaks better and probably articulates the message much more clearly, but there will likely never be someone better than Ron Paul. :)

[PreDeadMan]

Rand Paul is a very well versed speaker and that video did prove it. What surprised me is that Rand Paul said he will support whoever wins the primary do you think he's just saying that, or he really means it? Remember when everyone was asking Ron Paul if he would support the person who won the nomination for the Republican party and he said most likely not because it would go against everything he ever stood for?

[RM918]

Rand Paul is a very well versed speaker and that video did prove it. What surprised me is that Rand Paul said he will support whoever wins the primary do you think he's just saying that, or he really means it? Remember when everyone was asking Ron Paul if he would support the person who won the nomination for the Republican party and he said most likely not because it would go against everything he ever stood for?

This is my main misgiving. Rand is a far better politician than his father, which is not necessarily a good thing if you favor having principles it seems. I can only wait and see.

[Uriel999]

He speaks better and probably articulates the message much more clearly, but there will likely never be someone better than Ron Paul. :)

Fine he's a better salesman! Arrggg go to bed! I don't want you forcing me to refine my argument so late in the night. :p

Predeadman, I'm not sure. I would hope he wouldn't support trey greyson. ewwww.

[Bman]

Fine he's a better salesman! Arrggg go to bed! I don't want you forcing me to refine my argument so late in the night. :p

Predeadman, I'm not sure. I would hope he wouldn't support trey greyson. ewwww.

Who would you hope he did support? Given the circumstances do you think one of the Democratic Parties candidates would be better to support?

[Uriel999]

Who would you hope he did support? Given the circumstances do you think one of the Democratic Parties candidates would be better to support?

he doesn't have to support anyone.

[LibertyEagle]

Fine he's a better salesman! Arrggg go to bed! I don't want you forcing me to refine my argument so late in the night. :p

:p:)

[PreDeadMan]

I'm only hoping this is sort of a small scaled tactic Rand Paul is doing to show the voters that no matter who wins he'll give them 100 % of his support in the Republican party that is. Once he wins it doesn't really matter though lol =p

[Bman]

he doesn't have to support anyone.

But, he's going to because sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war.

I know none of us like this. No one here likes to compromise. Welcome to life.

[Akus]

He speaks better and probably articulates the message much more clearly, but there will likely never be someone better than Ron Paul. :)

Ok, ok now, let's not be Obamabots and turn RP into a religion.:o

[LibertyEagle]

Ok, ok now, let's not be Obamabots and turn RP into a religion.:o

This movement existed before Ron Paul and it will exist after he is gone. HOWEVER, during my lifetime, I have never seen another politician of Ron Paul's character. Have YOU?

[WClint]

Rand Paul is a better speaker the problem is he doesnt have the credibility of his father (for the simple fact that he has not been office as long as RP). With Ron Paul we know he will stick to his words and not change even if hes in office, Rand its an unknown (IE hes not a proven commodity).

[johnrocks]

He's pragmatic and realizes he needs support across the spectrum, from what I hear, KY. has a lot of social conservatives, he has to deal with that to get elected, that is walking a political tghtrope, RP just couldn't pull that off with his well recorded views, unlike Rand.

[ctiger2]

If Rand gets elected and actually has the integrity to vote like his father then I will agree. I want to see Senate legislation pass 98 to 2. With the 2 being Schiff and Paul.

[Chester Copperpot]

But, he's going to because sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war.

I know none of us like this. No one here likes to compromise. Welcome to life.

If we're ever going to take over the GOP we have to merge and make concessions from time to time..

Lose the battle , win the war.. exactly.

[torchbearer]

I think that grayson supporter may vote for rand in the primary.

[jmdrake]

This was a very good and political astute answer. But realize the difference between the Ron Paul 2008 campaign and the Rand Paul 2010 campaign. Ron was never in striking distance to win. So he had nothing to lose by not endorsing McCain. And considering the direction he took post the 2008, endorsing "bailout - bomb" McCain would have weakened the educational component of the CFL. Rand because of his position in the polls is able to flip the script and in effect ask "Will Trey Grayson support me if I win"?

[tremendoustie]

I in no way in this thread want to diminish the life long career and work that Dr. Paul has accomplished throughout his life. When he speaks on television it is like like pure sound gold. However, I've come to the conclusion that at least when it comes to speaking, his son Rand while inexperienced is already working more politically than his father. Ron is established and isn't going anywhere (despite media remarks) and just cuts to the chase and says whats one his mind which while amazing and has done wonders for us all here...Rand is clearly a superior politician where Ron is a great philosopher. Ron should be very proud. He's raised a son that has the potential to outdo himself. Isn't that what every parent wants? A son/daughter to do even better than he/she had accomplished in life? Seriously, go Rand Go...

YouTube - Will you support the winner of the primary no matter what? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAaKePjE4QE&feature=player_embedded)

I think he's a better politician, and speaker, but he doesn't have quite the "stand for what you believe to be true no matter what" attitude, which I like so much in Ron. That is, he seems to be a little more willing to adjust the message, or at least the sound of it, to make it more politically sucessful. For example, Ron had no problem saying that he could not endorce McCain as long as he kept his warmongering foreign policy.

Both are worth supporting, of course.

[The Deacon]

I think he's a better politician, and speaker, but he doesn't have quite the "stand for what you believe to be true no matter what" attitude, which I like so much in Ron. That is, he seems to be a little more willing to adjust the message, or at least the sound of it, to make it more politically sucessful. For example, Ron had no problem saying that he could not endorce McCain as long as he kept his warmongering foreign policy.

Both are worth supporting, of course.

I don't believe that Rand is a better speaker. Ron Paul puts out the ideas as simply as possible and sounds much more reasonable than any other politician in the country. Ron has that ordinary guy appeal on the exterior, but on the inside he's an intellectual with a master's grasp on the issues. There almost can't be a better spokesman for the movement.

The plus is Rand he has less past baggage than Ron which is good for winning elections. If Rand would be more of a go along to get along in the GOP, that has its positives and negatives. If Paul's philosophy become more mainstream then that's positive, but what if the message becomes diluted?

[Endgame]

Rand is just younger. Ron had a lot more fire in him back in the day. Rand also really needs to hire a hair stylist.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

For example, Ron had no problem saying that he could not endorce McCain as long as he kept his warmongering foreign policy.


Yeah, but notice when Ron Paul said that. It was in 2008 after he defeated Chris Peden in the GOP primary and when he had no general election opposition for his congressional seat.

[erowe1]

Rand's support for phonies like Grayson makes him worse than Ron, not better.

I'm of the school of thought that we're better off with Obama in office than we would have been had McCain won.

[dannno]

But, he's going to because sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war.

I know none of us like this. No one here likes to compromise. Welcome to life.

No, that's the ENTIRE problem with our political system that Ron Paul attempts to articulate day in and day out. It's too bad his son either doesn't understand, or maybe he's just playing politics, who knows. But the point is I would rather support a Democrat who wants to end the wars than a Republican who wants to end welfare.. cause ending the war will help our economy and lessen our need for welfare ultimately.. but we all know the Democrats won't end the war, so vote for a Republican, right? No!!! Who the hell wants to support for a drug war promoting, big spending Republican? Me?? Never.

[dannno]

I'm of the school of thought that we're better off with Obama in office than we would have been had McCain won.

I don't disagree.. I mean Obama has increased military spending by 20%, imagine if McCain increased it by 50% or more.. we could be dueling with Iran by now.

Obama is all pissed off at Israel who wants to build 900 more settlements. It may just be a pony show, but at least it is keeping the world that much less pissed off at us.

[dannno]

Rand because of his position in the polls is able to flip the script and in effect ask "Will Trey Grayson support me if I win"?

Ya I don't entirely disagree with the tactic, I have no problem supporting Rand. We need liberty candidates with various strategies to see what works best.. but ultimately we cannot actually put ourselves out for these establishment Republicans. If Rand needs to keep his word by saying, "I support Trey Grayson" if he some how ends up losing the primary, then fine, just don't go out campaigning for the guy.

[silverhandorder]

Rand has the benefit of being able to witness his father's career in front of his eyes. I would not be surprised if he surpasses Ron Paul in ability to articulate him self and fight the battles more efficiently. Unlike Ron, Rand has been exposed to the philosophy since he was born.

I am happy for both and think Rand would be a worthy successor.

[Matthew Zak]

Ron was like a broken cog, quietly misfiring in the establishment's machine for years, and then in 2008 it got really loud. Rand is coming from the outside, so he has to be a bit more of a Trojan Horse. But once he's in, I expect to hear some more clunking from that machine, don't you? Let's throw our support behind him so we can see screws popping loose by 2012.

[amy31416]

I think that Rand is possibly more pragmatic than Ron, but I also doubt that Rand could have ignited the same passions that Ron did. Give him 10 years of seasoning and he might get there.

Ron Paul has proven himself, and it was his record and principles that got me. Rand needs time to do the same--then perhaps I can make the comparison.

[NerveShocker]

If you want to know the difference between Ron and Rand maybe this quote put on Rand's website just recently will help:

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Heh.. so do you all agree or disagree with this? I'm not certain if Ron and Rand are on the same page on this issue maybe they are..

[dannno]

If you want to know the difference between Ron and Rand maybe this quote put on Rand's website just recently will help:

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Heh.. so do you all agree or disagree with this? I'm not certain if Ron and Rand are on the same page on this issue maybe they are..

I know I'm not on the same page on this issue.

[nelsonwinters]

If Rand gets elected and actually has the integrity to vote like his father then I will agree. I want to see Senate legislation pass 98 to 2. With the 2 being Schiff and Paul.

I want to see Senate legislation pass 98-2... with Schiff and Paul leading the 98!

[tremendoustie]

If you want to know the difference between Ron and Rand maybe this quote put on Rand's website just recently will help:

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Heh.. so do you all agree or disagree with this? I'm not certain if Ron and Rand are on the same page on this issue maybe they are..

Disagree.

I have hopes that he will stand with integrity in the Senate for liberty, however, rather than bend with the wind, like so many others. We shall see.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If you want to know the difference between Ron and Rand maybe this quote put on Rand's website just recently will help:

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Heh.. so do you all agree or disagree with this? I'm not certain if Ron and Rand are on the same page on this issue maybe they are..

Disagree. I don't know if he even understands our Foreign Policy with a statement like that. Remember, just because your a son of a highly principled libertarian, like Warren Buffet (Father acclaimed Howard Buffet), doesn't mean you will have the same principles, philosophy, or knowledge. Ron Paul is lightyears ahead of Rand. Even when Ron was young he had the same philosophy, same knowledge base, etc. Ron was friends with Murray Rothbard for crying out loud. I don't see Rand being best-friends with Dr. Block? What about Hoppe (Who is Rothbard's intellectual heir apparent like Rothbard was to Mises)?

So, no. If Rand wins we'll see how he conducts himself. I still support Rand, however, I have my eye like a hawk on him.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial, period. In any other term it completly nullifies the intent of a trial. Secondly, enemies is a nebulous term. Define enemies please. Is it whoever the State deems? Well, then I am an enemy.

Ron is definitely on a different wavelength than his son. We will see in time where the annals of history put Ron, and Rand. I have a feeling Ron is going to be our times Thomas Jefferson....

[MRoCkEd]

Rand is running in a closed Republican Primary in Kentucky.

Think about it.

[Ethek]

You have to work within the rules of any system to active a positon of power to change that system. I tell libertarian loyalist all the time that Rand has to work with the Social GOP concervatives here in KY.

Rand does have a philosophy of liberty. I believe that he will stay loyal to it. No matter what my issues are, despite Rand skirting official positons for the momment. My issues are Rands issues until he is elected. I can rest peacfully knowing that my rights will be protected under a restored and working Constitution.

AntiWar people seem to have a particuarly hard time with Rands Strong statements on National Defense. I remind them that it is one of the jobs of a Goverment to be able to project force to protect my inherinet rights. Again Rand also has the 'philosophy of liberty' and knows that liberty cannot survive in a state of perpetual war. Just do not expect Rand to voice that in a KY GOP primary.

[ClayTrainor]

Rand is running in a closed Republican Primary in Kentucky.

Think about it.

words of wisdom :)

[The Deacon]

If you want to know the difference between Ron and Rand maybe this quote put on Rand's website just recently will help:

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Heh.. so do you all agree or disagree with this? I'm not certain if Ron and Rand are on the same page on this issue maybe they are..

I hate to be too harsh on him, but that sounds like it came with the Cheney stamp of approval. I'd still vote for him if I were in Kentucky. But that does seem like a divergent position from what I'd prefer.

[MRoCkEd]

If Rand Paul appears weak on terrorism, his campaign is dead.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You have to work within the rules of any system to active a positon of power to change that system. I tell libertarian loyalist all the time that Rand has to work with the Social GOP concervatives here in KY.

Rand does have a philosophy of liberty. I believe that he will stay loyal to it. No matter what my issues are, despite Rand skirting official positons for the momment. My issues are Rands issues until he is elected. I can rest peacfully knowing that my rights will be protected under a restored and working Constitution.

AntiWar people seem to have a particuarly hard time with Rands Strong statements on National Defense. I remind them that it is one of the jobs of a Goverment to be able to project force to protect my inherinet rights. Again Rand also has the 'philosophy of liberty' and knows that liberty cannot survive in a state of perpetual war. Just do not expect Rand to voice that in a KY GOP primary.

War is the health of the State. War is also the biggest intervention into our liberties both personal and economic. I find it odd that supposedly "limited-State" supporters support such a position that completely contradicts their supposed philosophy.

If you are such a strict Constitutionalist you would understand that the original intent for standing armies in the Constitution calls for no standing army in excess of 2 years at any period of time. Obviously this means peace-time, and obviously the Constitution is clear on the use of military force; Congress can only declare war, and only in a declaration of war can a standing army be raised. But, this is inconvenient to the militaristic imperialists who parade around being "limited-State" supporters. What a facade and charade.

Only through free-trade and commerce, free-travel, dialogue, and peace with all nations and alliances with none will America achieve that elusive "national security" that is used to manipulate the population into giving up more and more liberty. If you believe that Government cannot intervene to fix domestic affairs, what makes you believe that it can intervene and fix international affairs? There is a clear logic disparity here. Reconcile.

[MRoCkEd]

War is the health of the State. War is also the biggest intervention into our liberties both personal and economic. I find it odd that supposedly "limited-State" supporters support such a position that completely contradicts their supposed philosophy.

If you are such a strict Constitutionalist you would understand that the original intent for standing armies in the Constitution calls for no standing army in excess of 2 years at any period of time. Obviously this means peace-time, and obviously the Constitution is clear on the use of military force; Congress can only declare war, and only in a declaration of war can a standing army be raised. But, this is inconvenient to the militaristic imperialists who parade around being "limited-State" supporters. What a facade and charade.
You won't get an argument on here.
But try winning over the republican electorate on that message.

[dannno]

You won't get an argument on here.
But try winning over the republican electorate on that message.

Ya Democrats are way more educated about foreign policy than Republicans... I mean, they're still watching the same propaganda campaign regarding current events, but historically they are willing to look at all of the instances where our country harmed another group of people, whereas Republicans have this inherent belief that America's military is a force for good, PERIOD. Any argument against that means you are against America to them.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You won't get an argument on here.
But try winning over the republican electorate on that message.

Of course in a campaign you wouldn't be as blunt to call for the dismantling of our armed services. However, you would definitely focus on foreign interventions and why they (just like domestic) fail to achieve our goals and actually create unintended consequences. History is rife with this occurence time and time again. Once you get them questioning the manipulation of the State, then you can talk about other things. Let's look at the root of the cause first.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Rand Paul is running exactly like he should in a closed republican primary in Kentucky.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Ya Democrats are way more educated about foreign policy than Republicans... I mean, they're still watching the same propaganda campaign regarding current events, but historically they are willing to look at all of the instances where our country harmed another group of people, whereas Republicans have this inherent belief that America's military is a force for good, PERIOD. Any argument against that means you are against America to them.

What? No they aren't. If anything the Democrats are just as bad. At least most Republicans are anti-UN, NAFTA, GATT, insert international alliance here. Democrats want to cede our sovereignty over to international bodies. It's the same falsification paradigm again. Both parties want peace, one believes in ceding our sovereignty and enforcing protectionism and the other wants to achieve peace through a gun. I'll take the latter than the former since the latter is easier to persuade than the former. That's just me however (If I had to choose between the two).

[dannno]

What? No they aren't. If anything the Democrats are just as bad. At least most Republicans are anti-UN, NAFTA, GATT, insert international alliance here. Democrats want to cede our sovereignty over to international bodies. It's the same falsification paradigm again. Both parties want peace, one believes in ceding our sovereignty and enforcing protectionism and the other wants to achieve peace through a gun. I'll take the latter than the former since the latter is easier to persuade than the former. That's just me however (If I had to choose between the two).

Hah, I didn't say the Democrats have the right answer (less bringing troops home, which most of them do want to do, not in DC tho unfortunately), I'm merely stating that they (generally) have a much better education regarding the history of American imperialism, whereas most Republicans will call you a hippy or something if you use the words "America" and "imperialism" in the same sentence.

[angelatc]

If Rand Paul appears weak on terrorism, his campaign is dead.

Yepper.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hah, I didn't say the Democrats have the right answer (less bringing troops home, which most of them do want to do, not in DC tho unfortunately), I'm merely stating that they (generally) have a much better education regarding the history of American imperialism, whereas most Republicans will call you a hippy or something if you use the words "America" and "imperialism" in the same sentence.

It is easier to educate the uninformed, than it is to educate the misinformed. Heed.

[Ethek]

Of course in a campaign you wouldn't be as blunt to call for the dismantling of our armed services. However, you would definitely focus on foreign interventions and why they (just like domestic) fail to achieve our goals and actually create unintended consequences. History is rife with this occurence time and time again. Once you get them questioning the manipulation of the State, then you can talk about other things. Let's look at the root of the cause first.

I recognize the dangerous precedent of 'standing armies' Rand is battling 150 years of brain washing since the civil war here in KY. A once neutral population was harassed and persecuted by the forces of a powerful central government. Rands strong national defense stance, goes back to working within the rules of any system until you are in a position to change it. Rands stances are for KY primary voters.. me supporting him makes those stances mine until I take my efforts elsewhere.

The change from interventionlism to non interventionalism can only come about by a comprehensive education. Rand has to align himself with KY GOP voters to have the ability to influence and spread a message. The Neocons, meanwhile, have done a masterful job of capitalizing on peoples fears.

Stilll, even if elected Rand is only a representative. Its up to a coalition of freedom seeking people to educate everyone else.. build up a communities self esteem to the point where they can have quiet confidence in the way the system is supposed to work and trust themselves not to be afraid of the current system being something else.

I support the Constitution, but it is lost right now. Common people need to seek out power to influence with the principles to do so in a framework parallel to the current constitution that guarantees that once the Constitution is restored everyone rights will be represented. Rand is working within a corrupted system right now. Even if he is elected this is not on him to fix, we have work to do to educate and reclaim the intent of a constitution thats lost in the hearts and minds of everyday people.

[dannno]

It is easier to educate the uninformed, than it is to educate the misinformed. Heed.

It is easier to educate the willing than the naive.

On that note, I agree that there are a lot of brainwashed dems who will never change.. but there are also a lot who are open minded and willing to listen to new ideas. That's why they are dems, cause the establishment Republicans are full of shit and the Dems are talking about 'progress'.. 'progress' leading in the wrong direction, maybe, but in their mind at least they are trying to solve the problem.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I recognize the dangerous precedent of 'standing armies' Rand is battling 150 years of brain washing since the civil war here in KY. A once neutral population was harassed and persecuted by the forces of a powerful central government. Rands strong national defense stance, goes back to working within the rules of any system until you are in a position to change it. Rands stances are for KY primary voters.. me supporting him makes those stances mine until I take my efforts elsewhere.

The change from interventionlism to non interventionalism can only come about by a comprehensive education. Rand has to align himself with KY GOP voters to have the ability to influence and spread a message. The Neocons, meanwhile, have done a masterful job of capitalizing on peoples fears.

Stilll, even if elected Rand is only a representative. Its up to a coalition of freedom seeking people to educate everyone else.. build up a communities self esteem to the point where they can have quiet confidence in the way the system is supposed to work and trust themselves not to be afraid of the current system being something else.

I support the Constitution, but it is lost right now. Common people need to seek out power to influence with the principles to do so in a framework parallel to the current constitution that guarantees that once the Constitution is restored everyone rights will be represented. Rand is working within a corrupted system right now. Even if he is elected this is not on him to fix, we have work to do to educate and reclaim the intent of a constitution thats lost in the hearts and minds of everyday people.

Let the record speak. I have no faith in politicians. I'll keep this bookmarked for histories sake. You may see this as a strategic campaign position, I see it however as unprincipled waffling. There is nothing to assure me that his principles are true. Time will tell if Ron/Rand is this generations Howard/Warren. Do you think Thomas Jefferson would ever pander to achieve his desired goals? That lying achieves those means? That deception is a valid tactic? I stand behind men of principle. Ron Paul has had the same message for the last 40 years. I don't see Rand having those same positions. It's like comparing Rothbard to Ayn Rand.

[AuH20]

It is easier to educate the willing than the naive.

On that note, I agree that there are a lot of brainwashed dems who will never change.. but there are also a lot who are open minded and willing to listen to new ideas. That's why they are dems, cause the establishment Republicans are full of shit and the Dems are talking about 'progress'.. 'progress' leading in the wrong direction, maybe, but in their mind at least they are trying to solve the problem.

Moderate dems below the Mason-dixon line. The Northeastern democrats are largely a lost cause. Sadly, they will likely go down with ship. We're talking about hardcore statists who view society as their plaything.

[dannno]

Moderate dems below the Mason-dixon line. The Northeastern democrats are largely a lost cause. Sadly, they will likely go down with ship. We're talking about hardcore statists who view society as their plaything.

Oh ya, you're right, I'm actually referring to west coast progressives which are really the only dems I have experience with.. There are a lot of people who identify with progressives here who have no desire to be involved with anything to do with government and live in the pine trees.. In fact many of these people are dem for the sole purpose of keeping down our foreign escalations. Think modern day anti-establishment hippies, and most of them are really cool.

[Uriel999]

Let the record speak. I have no faith in politicians. I'll keep this bookmarked for histories sake. You may see this as a strategic campaign position, I see it however as unprincipled waffling. There is nothing to assure me that his principles are true. Time will tell if Ron/Rand is this generations Howard/Warren. Do you think Thomas Jefferson would ever pander to achieve his desired goals? That lying achieves those means? That deception is a valid tactic? I stand behind men of principle. Ron Paul has had the same message for the last 40 years. I don't see Rand having those same positions. It's like comparing Rothbard to Ayn Rand.

I don't think Rand is lying, he is politicking though.

As far his comments on defense go though...I agree with that statement even. You guys do realize that there actually are wackos out there who would love to harm Americans given the chance so we should keep them out of the country. That doesn't mean Rand means we should continue the wars aboard or the "war on terror." Having a strong national defense does not mean perpetual war and hundreds of bases abroad.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Oh ya, you're right, I'm actually referring to west coast progressives which are really the only dems I have experience with.. There are a lot of people who identify with progressives here who have no desire to be involved with anything to do with government and live in the pine trees.. In fact many of these people are dem for the sole purpose of keeping down our foreign escalations. Think modern day anti-establishment hippies, and most of them are really cool.

They're anti-establishment yet vote in the likes of Babs Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Arnold Schwarzenaeggar? Where are all these people at? Do they support Ron Paul? What you will find with these progressives, is while they do have a more "peaceful" foreign policy outlook, their domestic agenda is largely Marxist. I find that converting Free-Market types to Non-interventionism easier than converting Marxists to Free-Markets and Non-interventionism. That's just me. Anecdotal, but with all the people I've met, and debated with in person and online the "progressives" are much harder to reach than the "conservatives" with a strong interventionist outlook on Foreign Policy. /shrug

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I don't think Rand is lying, he is politicking though.

As far his comments on defense go though...I agree with that statement even. You guys do realize that there actually are wackos out there who would love to harm Americans given the chance so we should keep them out of the country. That doesn't mean Rand means we should continue the wars aboard or the "war on terror." Having a strong national defense does not mean perpetual war and hundreds of bases abroad.

There are whacko's in our country right now. The solution to prevent the causes for these people to attack us, is not found in an increase in defense spending. It amazes me that people who support "strong" national defense, are so adamantly against the Fed and economic intervention when a "strong" national defense is itself the largest intervention into both our personal and economic liberty. The Fed gives carte-blanche to our militaristic empire and "strong" national defense. Without the Fed and without the monetary usury we wouldn't be able to afford this "strong" national defense.

If you believe in the Founders then you believe that our strongest national defense is not found in more boots, but in a peaceful foreign policy through trade, commerce, and travel and neutrality with alliances with none.

Do you honestly believe that anyone is going to invade a nation of 300+ million ARMED people? Why do you think defense goods are so expensive? In a free-market a tank, or plane would not cost tens of millions. Militia would satisfy any need for self-defense.

Also, the goals you seek; liberty, is not compatible with a strong national defense the likes of which you promote. This is your dichotomy. A good book to read is Killing Hope and Economics in One Lesson.

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II-Updated/dp/1567512526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258663209&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258663231&sr=1-1

[Austin]

Ron was like a broken cog, quietly misfiring in the establishment's machine for years, and then in 2008 it got really loud. Rand is coming from the outside, so he has to be a bit more of a Trojan Horse. But once he's in, I expect to hear some more clunking from that machine, don't you? Let's throw our support behind him so we can see screws popping loose by 2012.

+1

[dannno]

They're anti-establishment yet vote in the likes of Babs Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Arnold Schwarzenaeggar?

No, there are a lot of pro-establishment dems here too, that's not what I'm talking about.. but even the people I am talking about aren't very educated about what happens in Washington, they just want our god damn military to stop killing people. It's a shame that many of them end up voting for dems who vote for the wars anyway.




Where are all these people at? Do they support Ron Paul?

Yes, some support him from the "outside", as in they will say he's a great guy while not really supporting him, while many have never heard of him or dismiss him immediately because he has an (R) after his name.

I spent a good amount of time campaigning for Ron Paul at hippy farmers markets around here, and a lot of people who were willing to listen really liked what they heard. Then they probably went back home and turned on MSNBC or went to their left-wing organic foods association meeting and decided that the state needs to intervene to turn us around.. they just need more exposure to the message.




What you will find with these progressives, is while they do have a more "peaceful" foreign policy outlook, their domestic agenda is largely Marxist.

Ya, many of them do, some of them just want to be left alone like us.. Then there are others who want to be left alone just like us, but see the wage disparity in this country and around the globe and they have an inherent feeling that there is something wrong.. and they are right, there is something wrong. But instead of stealing from rich people to give to poor people, they just need to realize that the Fed is the cause of the disparity, not private enterprise.




I find that converting Free-Market types to Non-interventionism easier than converting Marxists to Free-Markets and Non-interventionism. That's just me. Anecdotal, but with all the people I've met, and debated with in person and online the "progressives" are much harder to reach than the "conservatives" with a strong interventionist outlook on Foreign Policy. /shrug

I don't know a lot of Republicans who are willing to stick to the whole free market thing. Those who I do know are already against the foreign wars.

[gb13]

There is no question Rand is a better public speaker than his father. Ron's mind moves faster than his mouth, and this has always been his Achilles heel. Ron is far too intelligent to be a politician. As I learned while campaigning for him, he also doesn't strike many people as having a great deal of charisma. I always say if Ron had the charisma of, say, a Romney, he would have been an unstoppable presidential candidate. No media blackout could have worked against him. For people like us, who see beyond the slick salesmanship involved in politics, this is not an issue. We were attracted to his ideals, ethics, and his ballsiness. The masses, however, will respond well to the sales pitch that Rand lends to his father's beautiful philosophies. The hope is that Ron was able to instill his own ethics and backbone in his son.

I have all the faith in the world that Ron Paul raised a good son, though. Hell, he's inspired me to be a better person, and I only met him once (even though we did chat for a solid couple of minutes, and it was apparently broadcast live on C-Span... not to brag or anything) :p

[Uriel999]

There are whacko's in our country right now. The solution to prevent the causes for these people to attack us, is not found in an increase in defense spending. It amazes me that people who support "strong" national defense, are so adamantly against the Fed and economic intervention when a "strong" national defense is itself the largest intervention into both our personal and economic liberty. The Fed gives carte-blanche to our militaristic empire and "strong" national defense. Without the Fed and without the monetary usury we wouldn't be able to afford this "strong" national defense.

If you believe in the Founders then you believe that our strongest national defense is not found in more boots, but in a peaceful foreign policy through trade, commerce, and travel and neutrality with alliances with none.

Do you honestly believe that anyone is going to invade a nation of 300+ million ARMED people? Why do you think defense goods are so expensive? In a free-market a tank, or plane would not cost tens of millions. Militia would satisfy any need for self-defense.

Also, the goals you seek; liberty, is not compatible with a strong national defense the likes of which you promote. This is your dichotomy. A good book to read is Killing Hope and Economics in One Lesson.

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Hope-C-I-Interventions-II-Updated/dp/1567512526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258663209&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258663231&sr=1-1

And I didn't argue against that did I? Look your new to RPF, this forum has been over this over and over and over again. Your saying something that we've all been saying on here a long time. What you described is a strong defense. That's what I'm saying. Our current form of offense has greatly weakened out country. However, In today's world you will never see a country such as ours without a military. Since our founding we never truly disbanded the military entirely. We always kept at least a skeleton crew that had the ability to quickly expand if needed. So get over it, the military is here to stay no matter how anti military you might be. A military isn't our problem, its the usage of the military that is the problem.