PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul is a Republican




Romulus
01-19-2010, 04:03 PM
Rand Paul is a Republican.
Debra Median is a Republican.
Peter Schiff is a Republican.
Adam Kokesh is a Republican.
etc
etc

And this is politics of compromise.

Deal with it and use it to our advantage. :)

That is all.

BuddyRey
01-19-2010, 04:20 PM
Republican is just a party label. It means absolutely nothing and bears no intrinsic philosophical imprint. Why do people put so much stock in these nonsense terms? All they do is keep us trapped in the Hegelian Dialectic.

parocks
01-19-2010, 04:24 PM
Work to get Good Liberty Republicans elected in the Primaries.
Support Republicans in the General.


Rand Paul is a Republican.
Debra Median is a Republican.
Peter Schiff is a Republican.
Adam Kokesh is a Republican.
etc
etc

And this is politics of compromise.

Deal with it and use it to our advantage. :)

That is all.

The Patriot
01-19-2010, 04:28 PM
Rand Paul is a Republican.
Debra Median is a Republican.
Peter Schiff is a Republican.
Adam Kokesh is a Republican.
etc
etc

And this is politics of compromise.

Deal with it and use it to our advantage. :)

That is all.

Not wild about Schiff...

YouTube - Peter Schiff Considers Supporting an Attack on Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFu0mCTh5Is)

LibertyEagle
01-19-2010, 04:36 PM
Work to get Good Liberty Republicans elected in the Primaries.
Agreed. :)


Support Republicans in the General.

I disagree. Vote for the best candidate, REGARDLESS of party. It is by doing otherwise, that we got in this mess to begin with.

parocks
01-19-2010, 04:39 PM
Agreed. :)



I disagree. Vote for the best candidate, REGARDLESS of party. It is by doing otherwise, that we got in this mess to begin with.

How did that mechanism work? By either sitting at home and not voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" or voting 3rd party, I'm not sure how that gets us out of this mess.

dannno
01-19-2010, 04:43 PM
Not wild about Schiff...



That's a shame, he's a great guy.. Constitutionalist and non-interventionist.

jmdrake
01-19-2010, 04:44 PM
Work to get Good Liberty Republicans elected in the Primaries.
Support Republicans in the General.

Just like Ron Paul did in 2008.....Oh wait a minute. Ron Paul endorsed third party candidate Chuck Baldwin in the general election and previously told his supporters to choose principle over party. But so many will gleefully ignore this.

Galileo Galilei
01-19-2010, 04:45 PM
Rand Paul is a Republican.
Debra Median is a Republican.
Peter Schiff is a Republican.
Adam Kokesh is a Republican.
etc
etc

And this is politics of compromise.

Deal with it and use it to our advantage. :)

That is all.

Ron Paul is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party.

I support Ron Paul and true Libertarians.

The GOP is a pile of neocon dung and socialist excrement.

The Patriot
01-19-2010, 04:47 PM
That's a shame, he's a great guy.. Constitutionalist and non-interventionist.

The video suggests otherwise.

parocks
01-19-2010, 04:51 PM
Just like Ron Paul did in 2008.....Oh wait a minute. Ron Paul endorsed third party candidate Chuck Baldwin in the general election and previously told his supporters to choose principle over party. But so many will gleefully ignore this.

Yes, I'm ignoring that. Does Ron Paul say to do that every time? I see Ron Paul 2008 as a special case, as many were dicks to Ron Paul back then, so Ron Paul's actions could be seen within that context.

LibertyEagle
01-19-2010, 04:51 PM
How did that mechanism work? By either sitting at home and not voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" or voting 3rd party, I'm not sure how that gets us out of this mess.

Where did I suggest sitting at home and not voting?

What we are doing differently today, is that liberty-loving candidates are getting out there and running for offices from the local level on up. We are supporting them and must continue to do so, to the best of our ability. They are not politicians; they are just people like you and I, who don't have special interest money behind them.

If they win the primaries they are in, we of course vote for them in the general. If they do not, at least I am going to vote for the best person in the race, regardless of party. If I just go ahead and vote for a Republican, regardless of what kind of POS he or she actually is, then I am part of the problem.

We've been playing this lesser of two evils game for way too long. I will vote my conscience, regardless of party. What others choose to do, is their own business.

LibertyEagle
01-19-2010, 04:55 PM
Ron Paul is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party.

I support Ron Paul and true Libertarians.

The GOP is a pile of neocon dung and socialist excrement.

Oh come on. :rolleyes:

The Libertarian party has its own problems. Remember Bob Barr? ;)

Political parties are just tools that can be used to get liberty candidates elected, so that we can get our government in check.

MN Patriot
01-19-2010, 04:55 PM
Libertarian is a relatively new term, since "liberal" now means socialist. We need a Libertarian Party to replace the liberal Republican party, so that we can have a legitimate choice. Freedom vs. fascism. Not the current choice of Democrat fascism vs. Republican fascism.

The Establishment is more than happy to give us the old Republican vs. Democrat parties so that more things change, the more they stay the same.

jmdrake
01-19-2010, 05:05 PM
Yes, I'm ignoring that. Does Ron Paul say to do that every time? I see Ron Paul 2008 as a special case, as many were dicks to Ron Paul back then, so Ron Paul's actions could be seen within that context.

If you think Ron Paul was just reacting to people being "dicks" to him then you don't understand Ron Paul very well. You also don't realize that these same people haven't quit being "dicks". (Lindsey Graham attacking Paul continuously. John Cornyn soliciting money for the GOP in general and then donating to Rand's primary opponent, the local GOP chair who put up the "too kooky for KY site". etc.) I doubt anybody in the OP list would endorse a republican in a general election just for the sake of electing a republican. But hey, continue being gleeful in ignoring the truth.

jmdrake
01-19-2010, 05:10 PM
How did that mechanism work? By either sitting at home and not voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" or voting 3rd party, I'm not sure how that gets us out of this mess.

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is what got us in this mess and keeps us in this mess. A lot of people who voted for Obama did so simply because he was "not Bush" and McCain was seen as too close to Bush. And we would not have been any better off had McCain won. McCain had endorsed Romneycare (which is what Obamacare has basically turned into) and McCain might have gotten us into war with Iran.

parocks
01-19-2010, 05:17 PM
If you think Ron Paul was just reacting to people being "dicks" to him then you don't understand Ron Paul very well. You also don't realize that these same people haven't quit being "dicks". (Lindsey Graham attacking Paul continuously. John Cornyn soliciting money for the GOP in general and then donating to Rand's primary opponent, the local GOP chair who put up the "too kooky for KY site". etc.) I doubt anybody in the OP list would endorse a republican in a general election just for the sake of electing a republican. But hey, continue being gleeful in ignoring the truth.

It's not a good strategy to vote for a 3p candidate that's certain to lose, but if they keep on being dicks to Ron Paul, I can see why people would want to do that. It's bad strategy on the GOPs part to attack Ron Paul.

jmdrake
01-19-2010, 05:20 PM
It's not a good strategy to vote for a 3p candidate that's certain to lose, but if they keep on being dicks to Ron Paul, I can see why people would want to do that. It's bad strategy on the GOPs part to attack Ron Paul.

The reason 3rd party candidates often lose is because of people who insist on voting for the "lesser of two evils" and try to pressure others to do the same. The more people wake up from this nonsense the better off we'll all be.

dannno
01-19-2010, 05:20 PM
The video suggests otherwise.

He was answering a hypothetical question from someone who is uneducated on the issues of the Middle East. He was going off of their assumptions which are incorrect. While Schiff is not as educated as Ron Paul on foreign policy, he is not an interventionist. He wants to end our foreign empire. He says this ALL the time. That is the MOST important thing we can do. You need to educate yourself further about his stances.

To be honest, if it came down to it, I think that Rand would be more of an interventionist than Schiff, though I have no voting record to go off of this is complete speculation. But I support both of them. And I don't support the likes of this Brown fellow at all.

parocks
01-19-2010, 05:22 PM
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is what got us in this mess and keeps us in this mess. A lot of people who voted for Obama did so simply because he was "not Bush" and McCain was seen as too close to Bush. And we would not have been any better off had McCain won. McCain had endorsed Romneycare (which is what Obamacare has basically turned into) and McCain might have gotten us into war with Iran.

It's important to understand the distinctions between Executive and Legislative races. Executives set the agenda more than any specific legislator.

If McCain was President right now, the political landscape would be entirely different.
It probably wouldn't be better for Liberty candidates, because it probably wouldn't be better for Republican candidates, and Liberty candidates are running as Republicans.

Joe Kennedy on Cavuto right now.

The Patriot
01-19-2010, 05:25 PM
He was answering a hypothetical question from someone who is uneducated on the issues of the Middle East. He was going off of their assumptions which are incorrect. While Schiff is not as educated as Ron Paul on foreign policy, he is not an interventionist. He wants to end our foreign empire. He says this ALL the time. That is the MOST important thing we can do. You need to educate yourself further about his stances.

To be honest, if it came down to it, I think that Rand would be more of an interventionist than Schiff, though I have no voting record to go off of this is complete speculation. But I support both of them. And I don't support the likes of this Brown fellow at all.

He send he wanted to bomb Iran if they get nuclear weapons, it is crystal clear, he said so in the video. That is a perfect example of first strike interventionism.

parocks
01-19-2010, 05:28 PM
Joe Kennedy just did quite well on Cavuto - Fox Business.


It's important to understand the distinctions between Executive and Legislative races. Executives set the agenda more than any specific legislator.

If McCain was President right now, the political landscape would be entirely different.
It probably wouldn't be better for Liberty candidates, because it probably wouldn't be better for Republican candidates, and Liberty candidates are running as Republicans.

Joe Kennedy on Cavuto right now.

tremendoustie
01-19-2010, 05:45 PM
Where did I suggest sitting at home and not voting?

What we are doing differently today, is that liberty-loving candidates are getting out there and running for offices from the local level on up. We are supporting them and must continue to do so, to the best of our ability. They are not politicians; they are just people like you and I, who don't have special interest money behind them.

If they win the primaries they are in, we of course vote for them in the general. If they do not, at least I am going to vote for the best person in the race, regardless of party. If I just go ahead and vote for a Republican, regardless of what kind of POS he or she actually is, then I am part of the problem.

We've been playing this lesser of two evils game for way too long. I will vote my conscience, regardless of party. What others choose to do, is their own business.

+1 to this

Lesser of two evils is still evil. And it doesn't even usually turn out to be lesser. What we need far more than a slightly less bad candidate in office is a populace who will stand up for principle. The message of liberty needs to be sent loud and clear -- and usually, that means voting for a libertarian, independent, other third party candidate, or write-in in the general.

klamath
01-19-2010, 06:03 PM
He was answering a hypothetical question from someone who is uneducated on the issues of the Middle East. He was going off of their assumptions which are incorrect. While Schiff is not as educated as Ron Paul on foreign policy, he is not an interventionist. He wants to end our foreign empire. He says this ALL the time. That is the MOST important thing we can do. You need to educate yourself further about his stances.

To be honest, if it came down to it, I think that Rand would be more of an interventionist than Schiff, though I have no voting record to go off of this is complete speculation. But I support both of them. And I don't support the likes of this Brown fellow at all.
I disagree on Rand being more of an interventionist than Schiff. Schiff is not an interventionist but he is for preventitive war. Schiff is for abortion as well so combined that makes him the lesser of two evils in CT but I would vote for him if I was from CT.

jmdrake
01-19-2010, 06:33 PM
It's important to understand the distinctions between Executive and Legislative races. Executives set the agenda more than any specific legislator.

If McCain was President right now, the political landscape would be entirely different.
It probably wouldn't be better for Liberty candidates, because it probably wouldn't be better for Republican candidates, and Liberty candidates are running as Republicans.

Joe Kennedy on Cavuto right now.

Fair enough. Let's look at a recent legislative race.

Q1. Did you back Dede Scozzafava when she was the GOP congressional candidate in New York? Why or why not?

Q2. Considering the outcome (a democrat won) do you think it folks like Sarah Palin and Fred Thompson should have held their nose and backed Dede or at least kept their mouths shut and endorsed nobody? Why or why not?

Goldhunter27
01-19-2010, 06:44 PM
I disagree on Rand being more of an interventionist than Schiff. Schiff is not an interventionist but he is for preventitive war. Schiff is for abortion as well so combined that makes him the lesser of two evils in CT but I would vote for him if I was from CT.


I see almost no difference between preventive war and interventionism.

jmdrake
01-19-2010, 06:44 PM
He was answering a hypothetical question from someone who is uneducated on the issues of the Middle East. He was going off of their assumptions which are incorrect. While Schiff is not as educated as Ron Paul on foreign policy, he is not an interventionist. He wants to end our foreign empire. He says this ALL the time. That is the MOST important thing we can do. You need to educate yourself further about his stances.

To be honest, if it came down to it, I think that Rand would be more of an interventionist than Schiff, though I have no voting record to go off of this is complete speculation. But I support both of them. And I don't support the likes of this Brown fellow at all.

You can't honestly call Schiff a non-interventionist at this point. Maybe "non-interventionist light" or "slightly interventionist". As for your "hypothetical question" point he wasn't even asked about Iran. He just volunteered that. He could have stopped by answering the Afghanistan and Iraq questions. I've heard nothing from Rand to suggest he would support attacking Iran off of some dubious "WMD intelligence". (And at this point any "intelligence" we get about WMDs anywhere should be taken with a grain of salt.) Rand has said he's against closing Gitmo and he supports tribunals, but that's a domestic policy question, not an intervention question.

That said I do support Rand and to a lesser extent Schiff. I don't support Brown, wouldn't give him a dime, vote for him if I lived in MA or volunteer to help him, but I do kinda hope he wins. All we'll get out of this is a further chink in Obama's "air of invincibility", but I'll take that.

Romulus
01-19-2010, 08:58 PM
Ron Paul is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party.

I support Ron Paul and true Libertarians.

The GOP is a pile of neocon dung and socialist excrement.

My point is lets not become elitists here and tow any single party line. Our liberty friends certainly don't. They play the game to their advantage, and that's why Ron Paul is an R. And that's why he's in Congress. Play the game to win, party be damned.