Rand Paul Rocks the Senate!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Sen. Rand Paul on Bloomberg TV - 07/07/11

Shows that the president presents false alternatives. Brilliant!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm7a2t-3DLo

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

A Brilliant Rant by Sen. Rand Paul in a Committee!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDHaeEsNF0&feature=player_embedded

[mport1]

A Brilliant Rant by Sen. Rand Paul in a Committee!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDHaeEsNF0&feature=player_embedded

For sure the best senate questioning ever.

[tpreitzel]

LoL ... Every home needs an air compressor connected to a plunger for use with their water miserly toilet!

[Mach]

I know who I'll be voting for come 2016.... and I think he's going to win.

[tpreitzel]

Every home needs a compressed-air plunger! Go Rand! ;)

[Shane Harris]

rand paul 2016 NEEDS to happen, if ron paul 2012 doesnt. and maybe even if it does, considering the strong possibility of a one term ron presidency

[AJ187]

rand paul 2016 NEEDS to happen, if ron paul 2012 doesnt. and maybe even if it does, considering the strong possibility of a one term ron presidency

Personally, I don't think we can wait another 4 years without a Paul in the white house. We just have to do everything we can to wake America up this time.

[Adrian.Bisson]

I'm so proud of and excited by Rand Paul's performance so far and the stands he's taken. He's been consistently great in the media (since Rachel Maddow), awesome on the Senate floor, and impressive in his press releases and in picking his battles. It's great to see him standing up and fighting, putting himself in the forefront of the issues, and positioning himself for the future.

A lot of people had some doubts about him during his campaign, but I hope they have been as satisfied as I've been that he's the real deal through and through. I really strongly believe that he is making all the right moves to run in 2016 and WIN, and that is one of the little lights of hope I can look toward when considering the otherwise bleak future America seems headed toward.

[Esoteric]

I know who I'll be voting for come 2016.... and I think he's going to win.

It's going to be a bloodbath with Christie in the race.

[Sola_Fide]

It's going to be a bloodbath with Christie in the race.

Judging from right now, Christie is probably Rand's toughest competition. Maybe Rubio, maybe even DeMint. But the worse the country gets, the better our solutions sound. I hope....

[vita3]

If Rand can be seen as a legit peace provider.. he will crush Christie or Bush III.. I mean Rubio.

[matt0611]

If Rand can be seen as a legit peace provider.. he will crush Christie or Bush III.. I mean Rubio.

Rand is amazing.
I think we all know in the back of our minds that he is our "plan B" so to speak in 2016. ;)

[Aratus]

2016

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

whoops. How do you delete a post... I guess you just right "whoops." Apologies...

[Romulus]

his knowledge, perspective and articulation make him crucial in this fight for liberty.

He brings in another dimension of support for us.

[Freedom 4 all]

I know who I'll be voting for come 2016.... and I think he's going to win.

Re-electing Ron Paul for a second term?

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Sen. Rand Pauls Speaks Out at HSGAC Hearing - 07/13/11


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SejgsCXdByE&feature=player_detailpage

He couldn't say that most of terror stacks are governments sponsored false flag op's.
http://www.bobtuskin.com/2011/06/13/false-flag-operations-past-present-and-the-inevitable-future/

[Travlyr]

Amazingly good.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Rand Paul Shuts Down US Senate Committee, Stops Bogus Bloated Pseudo-Education Bill By Demanding Senators Follow Their Own Rules


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rand-paul-education-20111019,0,119657.story?track=rss



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2GODbp-ils&feature=youtu.be

It is funny that a comedian Al Franken is presiding over the clowns (Paul excluded)! You can't make this stuff up!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

dlt

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Sen. Rand Paul Opening Statement at PROPERTY WRONGS Hearing - 10/12/11


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rsng9WH3xB8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7nsuV6HoXKI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7edhljb8vK0&feature=autoplay&list=UL7nsuV6HoXKI&lf=mfu_in_order&playnext=1

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Ron MIGHT be to old for a second term anyways. Rand 2016 is a certain possibility.

[eduardo89]

Ron MIGHT be to old for a second term anyways. Rand 2016 is a certain possibility.

I'd rather have a senile Ron Paul in office than a lucid Herman Cain (does that even exist?)

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I'd rather have a senile Ron Paul in office than a lucid Herman Cain (does that even exist?)Good one!

[Pericles]

I'm so proud of and excited by Rand Paul's performance so far and the stands he's taken. He's been consistently great in the media (since Rachel Maddow), awesome on the Senate floor, and impressive in his press releases and in picking his battles. It's great to see him standing up and fighting, putting himself in the forefront of the issues, and positioning himself for the future.

A lot of people had some doubts about him during his campaign, but I hope they have been as satisfied as I've been that he's the real deal through and through. I really strongly believe that he is making all the right moves to run in 2016 and WIN, and that is one of the little lights of hope I can look toward when considering the otherwise bleak future America seems headed toward.


And he is damn effective. A few more senators like him, and the Senate could do its job of stopping stupid stuff from being made into law.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo&feature=youtu.be


>>> Act Now <<< (http://www.votervoice.net/link/target/jbs/8q2i9g2R.aspx)

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Jon Stewart EXCELLENT Piece on the New American Detainee Bill in Congress (http://www.dailypaul.com/191395/jon-stewart-just-did-an-excellent-piece-on-the-new-american-detainee-bill-in-congress)

[Jodi's mom]

Loved it!!! I had never even heard of Jon Stewart until this election season.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

:) Thanks!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee's Colloquy on Senate Floor - 12/08/11

Balanced budget amendment is not a cure all, but it is a step in the right direction.
Much stronger solution is Honest Money Constitutional Amendment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?261839-Honest-Money-Constitutional-Amendment) because it prevents deficit spending the old fashion way: you cannot print gold!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSSMR6HA2Gs

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Rand Paul Guest On CBS 'The Early Show' (http://www.dailypaul.com/199154/video-rand-paul-guest-on-cbs-the-early-show-awesome)

Rand is AMAZING. He is beating these shills at their own game! Awesome!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Rand Paul Returns $500K in Office Budget to Treasury

Freshman Sen. Rand Paul is making good on his promise to cut federal spending. The Kentucky Republican and tea-party favorite said Thursday he’s returning $500,000 to the U.S. Treasury -- money from his operating budget that his office never spent.

The half million dollars represents about 16 percent of Paul’s annual budget, and he contends no senator has returned as much to taxpayers.

“I ran to stop the reckless spending. And I ran to end the damaging process of elected officials acting as errand boys, competing to see who could bring back the biggest check and the most amount of pork,” Paul said at a news conference in Louisville, where he presented taxpayers with a massive mock check for $500,000.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/

You can tell Rand was raised right by his dad!

[eduardo89]

I'm going to go out and say it: Anyone who has dissed Rand is an idiot. Rand is by far the best senator we've had in a very very very long time. He's a million times better than Mike Lee and that says a lot because Mike Lee on his own is a million times better than any other senator!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I'm going to go out and say it: Anyone who has dissed Rand is an idiot. Rand is by far the best senator we've had in a very very very long time. He's a million times better than Mike Lee and that says a lot because Mike Lee on his own is a million times better than any other senator!Nice! And RON is a THOUSAND times better than Rand. :)

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Rand Paul's new END THE TSA Bill! (http://www.chooseliberty.org/tsa_sign.aspx?pid=0501n)


"Senator Rand Paul has a plan to get the government out of your pants and the TSA out of your life.


His END THE TSA bill will fully privatize the TSA, getting the government out of the airport entirely.


And Campaign for Liberty has a plan to force action on this bill in the coming months, but to make this happen, we must have your support today.


First, please complete your END THE TSA petition.


Campaign for Liberty will deliver it, along with hundreds of thousands of others from outraged Americans."


Please Sign the Petition here! (http://www.chooseliberty.org/tsa_sign.aspx?pid=0501n)

[rockerrockstar]

Maybe we should make a law that limits the number of pages a bill and its amendments can be.

[PierzStyx]

Rand Paul 2020!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Lew Rockwell: Ron Paul and Rand Paul are different! (http://www.dailypaul.com/238766/lew-rockwell-on-rt-abby-martin-ron-paul-and-rand-paul-are-different)


Lew: "You CAN'T change the Regime from the inside, any more than you can change the Mafia from the inside!"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGfcS6NkiAY&amp;feature=youtu.be


Amen!


Let me get this straight: You despise Romney's principles but you endorse him because of the party? That is the definition of party over principle philosophy. This is what is wrong with Washington! And you are doing it now!

But I am not very surprised. I knew that Rand is miles apart from his father in understanding and respect for true principles of liberty. This is why I never fully trusted him anyway! I was right.

Ron Paul is head and shoulders above his son as far as integrity and understanding of correct principles is concerned!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Rand Paul calls for Revolt After Health Law Ruling (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/06/29/rand-paul-calls-for-revolt-after-health-law-ruling/)


“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so,”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9nOQsRcnxA&amp;feature=player_embedded#!

[Anti Federalist]

I know who I'll be voting for come 2016.... and I think he's going to win.

Then you had damn well better do everything in your power to make sure Romney does not "win" in 2012.

[HigherVision]

If Rand can be seen as a legit peace provider.. he will crush Christie or Bush III.. I mean Rubio.

Unfortunately I doubt it. Most of the Republican base is anti-peace, so he'll have to play up how he's 'getting tough' on certain countries like Iran that they don't like. Something he's relatively good at, alienating the small libertarian base to win over larger conservative statist support. Which is absolutely necessary to win elections.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Unfortunately I doubt it. Most of the Republican base is anti-peace, so he'll have to play up how he's 'getting tough' on certain countries like Iran that they don't like. Something he's relatively good at, alienating the small libertarian base to win over larger conservative statist support. Which is absolutely necessary to win elections.That's why I do NOT fully trust Rand. He is "a little bit pregnant" with statists' poison. But inasmuch as he votes right, I will support him. But I still don't trust him fully. I trust his father MUCH more!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Sen. Rand Paul on Bloomberg TV - 07/07/11

Shows that the president presents false alternatives. Brilliant!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm7a2t-3DLo

We need to allow tent cities to be built in the parks. That was how people were helped out of the Great Depression. When people aren't burdened with having to pay any rent, they will be more willing to accept working at a crappy job.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That's why I do NOT fully trust Rand. He is "a little bit pregnant" with statists' poison. But inasmuch as he votes right, I will support him. But I still don't trust him fully. I trust his father MUCH more!

Could you please expain to my grandmother what a statist is? She is very distraught right now having just accidently started the dryer without knowing her cat was inside.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Then you had damn well better do everything in your power to make sure Romney does not "win" in 2012.

But if Obama wins another term, won't that be another four years of him serving without a birth certificate?

[AuH20]

Unfortunately I doubt it. Most of the Republican base is anti-peace, so he'll have to play up how he's 'getting tough' on certain countries like Iran that they don't like. Something he's relatively good at, alienating the small libertarian base to win over larger conservative statist support. Which is absolutely necessary to win elections.

They are anti-peace when they examine the death toll inflicted on their sons and daughters in the U.S. military. But they are not belligerent. Rand Paul is one of the few who communicates exquisitely the cost/benefit analysis of costly overseas campaign to registered Republicans, unlike any other politician in the contemporary political setting.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Could you please expain to my grandmother what a statist is? She is very distraught right now having just accidently started the dryer without knowing her cat was inside.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statist+?s=t

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statist+?s=t

My grandmother started giggling at your response, but she then grabbed a shovel to go out into her potato garden to dig up a dictionary. How does one purchase seeds to plant dictionaries? Oh, you probably think this is nonsense.
What is a dictionary? What is the definition of a dictionary? Why were the first books actually scrolls? What was a traveling troubadour? Why did they have to act out Homer's books?

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

My grandmother started giggling at your response, but she then grabbed a shovel to go out into her potato garden to dig up a dictionary. How does one purchase seeds to plant dictionaries? Oh, you probably think this is nonsense.
What is a dictionary? What is the definition of a dictionary? Why were the first books actually scrolls? What was a traveling troubadour? Why did they have to act out Homer's books?Why does an idiot need a dictionary? Why do grandmothers use shovels for word references? Why have an intelligent conversation when you can play the fool? All good and deep questions. I leave the answers to you.

:)

Peace.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Rand Paul becoming a sellout?


(WAC NYC) Luke Rudkowski talks with Abby Martin of MediaRoots.org and RT about U.S. Senator Rand Paul’s attempt to get her arrested and stripped of her press credentials for asking him tough questions in the Capitol building. A week after our video with Abby Martin came out on YouTube, the RT office, where Abby works, got an ominous phone call from the Senate Media Relations Committee. The Committee was acting on behalf of Rand Paul and threatened both Abby and the entire RT news organization. The threats included ambiguous “charges” for violating the rules of the Committee floor, Abby’s possible arrest and the termination of her and the entire office’s press credentials. After a month of meetings and deliberation, the Senate Media Relations office backed down and did not make good on any of their threats.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osg0RYAP2cs&amp;feature=player_embedded

I never fully trusted Rand, I always thought he was "a little bit pregnant" with statism, and now his belly is showing!

Sad but true. Rand and Ron are MILES apart. (Ron is also imperfect, but he is a better man by a mile!)

Senator Rand Paul's True Colors

(http://mediaroots.org/senator-rand-pauls-true-colors.php)Rand Paul Confronted on Mitt Romney Endorsement (http://www.mediaroots.org/rand-paul-confronted-on-mitt-romney-endorsement.php)

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I don't like Rand and I don't trust him. But inasmuch as he does good I'll keep posting to this thread.

Rand Paul single-handedly tries to stop NDAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IcBdtSE-M3g#!

[itshappening]

Are you stupid? If Rand Paul is to have ANY future in the GOP he had to endorse the nominee, Romney, so quit using it against him.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Are you stupid? If Rand Paul is to have ANY future in the GOP he had to endorse the nominee, Romney, so quit using it against him.Are you stupid? You cannot fight evil by endorsing it! Rand Paul is a little bit pregnant with statism. He is not a very nice man also how he abused Luke http://mediaroots.org/senator-rand-pauls-true-colors.php

Rand is a sellout and a bully. I hope he repents, but for now, I do not trust him.

[itshappening]

Are you stupid? You cannot fight evil by endorsing it! Rand Paul is a little bit pregnant with statism. He is not a very nice man also how he abused Luke http://mediaroots.org/senator-rand-pauls-true-colors.php

Rand is a sellout and a bully. I hope he repents, but for now, I do not trust him.

Rand never endorsed evil, he endorsed his party's nominee for president because if he's ever going to be president one day he needed to do that. it's that simple.

he's not a sellout or a bully, you're an idiot.

Luke is stupid for even making this an issue and confronting him over and over. Rand is right to ignore him and not want anything to do with these kinds of confrontations.

It serves no purpose and Luke is only doing it to attract attention and be a whiner no matter what Rand Paul does, no matter the fact that he's been fillibustering the PATRIOT act, the NDAA, forcing votes on foreign aid and everything else bad coming up in the Senate that would pass unanimously if he wasn't there.

If Rand is going to run for the GOP nomination then he also has to be seen to be a loyal to the party and its structures. That''s how it works. It's not difficult to understand any of this.

[loveshiscountry]

Are you stupid? If Rand Paul is to have ANY future in the GOP he had to endorse the nominee, Romney, so quit using it against him.Agreed. Loose a battle to win the war.

[opal]

I've been holding back on what I think about Rand for POTUS in 2016.. the more video's of him I watch, the more I think we need him in the senate more than driving the ship so to speak. His vote in the senate and his introduction of bills and speeches on issues in that body are too valuable to lose.
I also think he's too young (inexperienced) to win as a GOP candidate. Yes, Obama had virtually no experience but it wasn't the GOP ticket he ran on.
I am not saying he's not qualified, I just don't think the nationwide GOP voters - esp the older ones will get behind him. If he had had a term of being Governor AND his term in the senate.. maybe.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Agreed. Loose a battle to win the war.Lose your principles lose a war. Lose your principles lose your soul.

Rand compromised his principles by endorsing a guy who is opposite to correct principles of liberty in EVERY major point of policy and economics, a guy who promotes the violence of the state and thus tramples JUSTICE and Liberty.

Ron said, "I cannot endorse Romney because that would be against almost every principle I fought for over 30 years." Rand had no such scruples. Rand is a sellout who compromised his principles and his soul for an illusion of power.

He did not understand that he would have had much more power had he remained true to his principles, and supported his Dad to the end, instead of campaigning for his opponent!

He is an idiot in this point! "Yes, I am against murder, but I will campaign for Freddy Krueger (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ZDv&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&spell=1&q=Freddy+Krueger&sa=X&ei=TBatUKz8B8feiALAloCQCA&ved=0CC0QvwUoAA)."

[itshappening]

Like I said you're stupid.

Ron isnt ever going to run for president ever again and when he won delegates and tried to get on the ballot at the convention the party screwed him over.

Like it or not if you antagonize the party they will screw you over. Rand wants to be the party nominee and wants to be president so he has to be nice to them.. this means not antagnozing them, raising money for them, endorsing their nominee and being a team player. Every nominee and president in history has done exactly the same.

This is not selling principles this is simply doing what every politician seeking higher office has done before and will continue to do if they want to actually win or be nominated.

Luke and We are Change can quite honestly get lost and should stop shoving cameras in Rand's face (who is the best U.S Senator by FAR and who fillibusters Patriot Act and and other things) when he's not interested in talking to him about these issues.

[AuH20]

Lose your principles lose a war. Lose your principles lose your soul.

Rand compromised his principles by endorsing a guy who is opposite to correct principles of liberty in EVERY major point of policy and economics, a guy who promotes the violence of the state and thus tramples JUSTICE and Liberty.

Ron said, "I cannot endorse Romney because that would be against almost every principle I fought for over 30 years." Rand had no such scruples. Rand is a sellout who compromised his principles and his soul for an illusion of power. He is an idiot in this point! "Yes, I am against murder, but I am for Freddy Krueger (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ZDv&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&spell=1&q=Freddy+Krueger&sa=X&ei=TBatUKz8B8feiALAloCQCA&ved=0CC0QvwUoAA)."

There were 2 candiates. Obama or Romney. One of the 2 was going to be president. As a senator, you have to pick 1 and preferably the one in your party. Coke or Pepsi. Rand chose 'coca-cola.' He didn't betray anything in that context. It's not like Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode (who I voted for) could have won, and that Rand's endorsement could have thrown them over the top.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Like I said you're stupid. Let's just settle that: YOU are stupid!

[gerryb1]

People who still do not understand Rand's endorsement really should not be involved in any electoral process.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

There were 2 candiates. Obama or Romney. One of the 2 was going to be president. As a senator, you have to pick 1 and preferably the one in your party. Coke or Pepsi. Rand chose 'coca-cola.' He didn't betray anything in that context. It's not like Gary Johnson or Virgil Goode (who I voted for) could have won, and that Rand's endorsement could have thrown them over the top.Both Coke and Pepsi contain poison. He should have chosen cranberry juice.

It's not like Romney could have won. If he could, so could Ron Paul. Only because everyone believes this garbage Obama wins.

It is a lie! Don't you get it? Ron Paul COULD HAVE WON, no less than Romney could have won. Stop believing a lie, and you will change things!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

People who still do not understand Rand's endorsement really should not be involved in any electoral process.People who agree with Rand's endorsement ARE the problem with the electoral process, because they are almost EVERYWHERE. (Unless you believe there are no problems with the electoral process of course).

[Aeroneous]

Like I said you're stupid.

Ron isnt ever going to run for president ever again and when he won delegates and tried to get on the ballot at the convention the party screwed him over.

Like it or not if you antagonize the party they will screw you over. Rand wants to be the party nominee and wants to be president so he has to be nice to them.. this means not antagnozing them, raising money for them, endorsing their nominee and being a team player. Every nominee and president in history has done exactly the same.

This is not selling principles this is simply doing what every politician seeking higher office has done before and will continue to do if they want to actually win or be nominated.

Luke and We are Change can quite honestly get lost and should stop shoving cameras in Rand's face (who is the best U.S Senator by FAR and who fillibusters Patriot Act and and other things) when he's not interested in talking to him about these issues.

Agreed. Ron isn't going to be a viable option again, and it doesn't seem like there is anyone else poised to become one outside of Rand. It's a lot easier to gain momentum in a movement if there's a unified focal point and it seems like Rand is going to be that focal point. How long can we keep ignoring the overall goal of growing the liberty movement? If we just keep comparing every potential candidate to Ron Paul, determining that they're not a perfect clone, and then writing in Ron Paul on principle, we won't get anywhere.

Rand may not be perfect, but I'd rather see an 80% candidate win than a 100% candidate get railroaded.

Just my $0.02. Obviously I'm a newbie around these parts so take my thoughts with a huge grain of salt.

[gerryb1]

People who agree with Rand's endorsement ARE the problem with the electoral process, because they are almost EVERYWHERE. (Unless you believe there are no problems with the electoral process of course).

You're not going to change 2 million years of the evolution of the human races brain...

[Origanalist]

Like I said you're stupid.





Let's just settle that: YOU are stupid!

:toady:

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Agreed. Ron isn't going to be a viable option again, and it doesn't seem like there is anyone else poised to become one outside of Rand. It's a lot easier to gain momentum in a movement if there's a unified focal point and it seems like Rand is going to be that focal point. How long can we keep ignoring the overall goal of growing the liberty movement? If we just keep comparing every potential candidate to Ron Paul, determining that they're not a perfect clone, and then writing in Ron Paul on principle, we won't get anywhere.

Rand may not be perfect, but I'd rather see an 80% candidate win than a 100% candidate get railroaded.

Just my $0.02. Obviously I'm a newbie around these parts so take my thoughts with a huge grain of salt.Good point. That's why I am willing to give Rand another chance. But I do not trust him yet. Will see. This is the reason I still post to this thread. Inasmuch as he does good, I will support him, but inasmuch as he does bad, he has no support from me. And he did compromize his influence with the grassroots and with the truth. Stupid move on his part indeed.

So will see about Rand.

Thanks.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

You're not going to change 2 million years of the evolution of the human races brain...Neither do I intend to. I am simply stating the facts: It is ONLY because everyone believes that Ron "has no chance" does a clown, criminal and imposter like Obama wins. You people believe garbage, and you of course get garbage. "According to your faith" it is done unto you. Very stupid belief indeed.

[Jamesiv1]

Let me get this straight: You despise Romney's principles but you endorse him because of the party? That is the definition of party over principle philosophy. This is what is wrong with Washington! And you are doing it now!

But I am not very surprised. I knew that Rand is miles apart from his father in understanding and respect for true principles of liberty. This is why I never fully trusted him anyway! I was right.

Ron Paul is head and shoulders above his son as far as integrity and understanding of correct principles is concerned!

Lew is a smart guy and I appreciate all he's done and doing for the cause, but he's in la-la land when it comes to getting things done in Washington.

It's going to be FUN watching Rand the next few years!!

[BAllen]

Like I said you're stupid.

Ron isnt ever going to run for president ever again and when he won delegates and tried to get on the ballot at the convention the party screwed him over.

Like it or not if you antagonize the party they will screw you over. Rand wants to be the party nominee and wants to be president so he has to be nice to them.. this means not antagnozing them, raising money for them, endorsing their nominee and being a team player. Every nominee and president in history has done exactly the same.

This is not selling principles this is simply doing what every politician seeking higher office has done before and will continue to do if they want to actually win or be nominated.

Luke and We are Change can quite honestly get lost and should stop shoving cameras in Rand's face (who is the best U.S Senator by FAR and who fillibusters Patriot Act and and other things) when he's not interested in talking to him about these issues.

So glad to read this, as it lets me know I am not alone in this thinking. Too many paulbots have this 'all or nothing' attitude that will get us nowhere. Future elections may not be legitimate anymore anyway, but if there is a chance, Rand is going about it the right way. You play the game to get elected, then do the right thing where it will count the most. It's not only the positions one takes, but when they take it.

[Jamesiv1]

Are you stupid?

Luke is stupid

Like I said you're stupid.

Let's just settle that: YOU are stupid!

Political debate in America :)

(original 'quote the stupid' idea by Origanalist - worth repeating)

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Lew is a smart guy and I appreciate all he's done and doing for the cause, but he's in la-la land when it comes to getting things done in Washington.

It's going to be FUN watching Rand the next few years!!Lew is right. Ron Paul is right. Rand is not entirely right. If he does good I will support him. But if he does bad, I will call him out on it.

[Mach]

Let Rand explain things......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFig1WNMmPI

This will be a very interesting time, from all sides..... hopefully.

[Rudeman]

Political debate in America :)

(original 'quote the stupid' idea by Origanalist - worth repeating)

I know you are but what am I!



LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA


http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8lCuZfWk6BA/0.jpg

:)

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

So glad to read this, as it lets me know I am not alone in this thinking. Too many paulbots have this 'all or nothing' attitude that will get us nowhere. Future elections may not be legitimate anymore anyway, but if there is a chance, Rand is going about it the right way. You play the game to get elected, then do the right thing where it will count the most. It's not only the positions one takes, but when they take it.I disagree. By sacrificing his principles (and make no mistake you sacrifice your principles when you indorse evil), Rand does disservice to his own credibility and to the cause of Liberty in general.

It is WRONG to indorse evil. You cannot promote the cause of Liberty by sacrificing its principles by indorsing an enemy of Liberty.

You cannot defend correct principles by violating them! You cannot defend Liberty by destroying Liberty. It is obvious to anyone with any reason or integrity left intact. It is basic. And Rand does not understand it. That's why I correctly said: He is a little bit pregnant with statism and tyranny. Just a touch of pregnancy. A little bit. If he does not change, this will grow until it destroys him.

[Rudeman]

Ron Paul has endorsed evil several times, do you think it did a disservice to his credibility and the cause of Liberty in general?


Do you think Rand Paul is evil?

[BAllen]

I disagree. By sacrificing his principles (and make no mistake you sacrifice your principles when you indorse evil), Rand does disservice to his own credibility and to the cause of Liberty in general.

It is WRONG to indorse evil. You cannot promote the cause of Liberty by sacrificing its principles by indorsing an enemy of Liberty.

You cannot defend correct principles by violating them! You cannot defend Liberty by destroying Liberty. It is obvious to anyone with any reason or integrity left intact. It is basic. And Rand does not understand it. That's why I correctly said: He is a little bit pregnant with statism and tyranny. Just a touch of pregnancy. A little bit. If he does not change, this will grow until it destroys him.
Yeah, you keep dreaming about a perfect candidate, b/c they don't exist.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Ron Paul has endorsed evil several times, do you think it did a disservice to his credibility and the cause of Liberty in general?


Do you think Rand Paul is evil?Yes it did a disservice. Ron admitted he is not perfect. His son just took that imperfection and multiplied it by 10 by indorsing his father's opponent. Poetic justice, I suppose.

Ron Paul is not evil. He repented (I hope).

:)

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Yeah, you keep dreaming about a perfect candidate, b/c they don't exist.Some are more perfect than others. If they do good, I will support them. But I will not endorse evil, even if it is the lesser of the two.

:)

[Jamesiv1]

I disagree. By sacrificing his principles (and make no mistake you sacrifice your principles when you indorse evil), Rand does disservice to his own credibility and to the cause of Liberty in general.

It is WRONG to indorse evil. You cannot promote the cause of Liberty by sacrificing its principles by indorsing an enemy of Liberty.

You cannot defend correct principles by violating them! You cannot defend Liberty by destroying Liberty. It is obvious to anyone with any reason or integrity left intact. It is basic. And Rand does not understand it. That's why I correctly said: He is a little bit pregnant with statism and tyranny. Just a touch of pregnancy. A little bit. If he does not change, this will grow until it destroys him.

Embrace it, you're stupid.

"we cannot heal or change what we will not acknowledge"

1-800-461-8826 <-- SA meeting hotline

:) :) :)

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Embrace it, you're stupid.

"we cannot heal or change what we will not acknowledge"

1-800-461-8826 <-- SA meeting hotline

:)Embrace it, you're stupid.

"we cannot heal or change what we will not acknowledge"

1-800-461-8826 <-- SA meeting hotline

[opal]

If.. and it's a big IF Ron wants to run for '16 - I'd love to be a fly on the wall at that dinner table discussion with him and Rand. And.. yes.. I'd be behind Ron 100%

[Dystopian]

I think after the Romney endorsement debacle, Rand figured out real quickly who butters his bread. I've seen him start talking much more libertarian after that backlash. He realized that he couldn't just use us as a stepping stone to power, but needed our continued support to keep him relevant. He's walking a mighty tight rope, but as long as he's slightly leaning towards our side, then I will support him.

[Origanalist]

I think after the Romney endorsement debacle, Rand figured out real quickly who butters his bread. I've seen him start talking much more libertarian after that backlash. He realized that he couldn't just use us as a stepping stone to power, but needed our continued support to keep him relevant. He's walking a mighty tight rope, but as long as he's slightly leaning towards our side, then I will support him.

Seems to me he's been leaning more than just slightly.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I think after the Romney endorsement debacle, Rand figured out real quickly who butters his bread. I've seen him start talking much more libertarian after that backlash. He realized that he couldn't just use us as a stepping stone to power, but needed our continued support to keep him relevant. He's walking a mighty tight rope, but as long as he's slightly leaning towards our side, then I will support him.Good point. But if he leans "slightly" that is exactly the amount of support he will get from me "slightly."

[paulbot24]

Take a look at the way he eviscerates this woman on the subject of pro-choice and light bulbs. He allows her to admit that she is pro-choice and then annihlates her on our lack of choices on simple decisions such as light bulbs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDHaeEsNF0
Then if you still are wondering about his "leaning", listen to him destroy our failed foreign policy in just giving away money, and to terrible "allies" as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDBnz60RTUw&amp;feature=youtu.be
The full video of his criticism of foreign aid, especially in response to Hillary wanting to increase Egypt's aid is worth watching.

Rand Paul 2016

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Take a look at the way he eviscerates this woman on the subject of pro-choice and light bulbs. He allows her to admit that she is pro-choice and then annihlates her on our lack of choices on simple decisions such as light bulbs.

Then if you still are wondering about his "leaning", listen to him destroy our failed foreign policy in just giving away money, and to terrible "allies" as well.

The full video of his criticism of foreign aid, especially in response to Hillary wanting to increase Egypt's aid is worth watching.

Rand Paul 2016This is good stuff. I like how he spoke to them. I did not however like that he endorsed and campaigned for a man who opposes all these measures, and at the time was the opponent of his father! That is compromise of principle when you endorse the candidate who opposes almost every key principle of Liberty! That does not speak of integrity to me. But you are right, there is probably no better senator at the time, which does not speak much because almost all of them are crooks. And it does not yet mean that I will vote for him, unless he alignes himself against all taxation like Ron Paul did. Taxation = agressive violance = evil = injustice. I cannot support it.

Cheers.

[Jamesiv1]

paulbot24's two videos above
Rand Paul kicks ass - with pretty much every step he takes.

I don't give a frig who he endorses - endorsements mean nothing. What matters is whose ass he's kicking in Congress, and how he votes.

Rock on Rand.

[paulbot24]

It takes a great deal of integrity and principles to stand up, on the Senate floor, and denounce your fellow Senators for being arrogant and reckless. He said he would endorse the eventual nominee and that just happened to be Romney. He never endorsed Romney's character or said he was a man of ______________, he endorsed the nominee as he said he would. That is integrity. He called them the fuck out, just like his dad taught him to do right there in the Capitol building.

[Brett85]

I did not however like that he endorsed and campaigned for a man who opposes all these measures, and at the time was the opponent of his father!

Can we not be crazy and admit that Ron had a 0% chance of winning the Republican nomination at the time Rand made his endorsement? Romney had already accumulated enough delegates to win the nomination, and Ron had even sent out an email admitting that he wasn't going to be the Republican nominee. Anyone who thinks that Rand somehow cost Ron the GOP nomination is completely out of their mind.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Can we not be crazy and admit that Ron had a 0% chance of winning the Republican nomination at the time Rand made his endorsement? Romney had already accumulated enough delegates to win the nomination, and Ron had even sent out an email admitting that he wasn't going to be the Republican nominee. Anyone who thinks that Rand somehow cost Ron the GOP nomination is completely out of their mind.To me it is irrelevant whether or not Rand caused his Dad the nomination, but he definitely caused himself a loss of trust, and compromised his integrity, at least in part. It was wrong. It was not good. It was a mistake. He would have had much more fervent support by the people had he not compromised against the truth. I say it again: how can you say "I am against murder" when you campaign for Freddy Krueger (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ZDv&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&spell=1&q=Freddy+Krueger&sa=X&ei=TBatUKz8B8feiALAloCQCA&ved=0CC0QvwUoAA)? It is a blatant contradiction. He would have been much better off supporting his Dad to the end. That would have given him true credibility, and greater support of the people. Yet he cast his lot with corrupt republicans instead. Not wise; in his bones he must know that. That was stupid!

[Brett85]

To me it is irrelevant whether or not Rand caused his Dad the nomination, but he definitely caused himself a loss of trust, and compromised his integrity, at least in part. It was wrong. It was not good. It was a mistake. He would have had much more fervent support by the people had he not compromised against the truth. I say it again: how can you say "I am against murder" when you campaign for Freddy Krueger (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ZDv&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&spell=1&q=Freddy+Krueger&sa=X&ei=TBatUKz8B8feiALAloCQCA&ved=0CC0QvwUoAA)? It is a blatant contradiction. He would have been much better off supporting his Dad to the end. That would have given him true credibility, and greater support of the people. Yet he cast his lot with corrupt republicans instead. Not wise; in his bones he must know that. That was stupid!

...

[Brett85]

To me it is irrelevant whether or not Rand caused his Dad the nomination, but he definitely caused himself a loss of trust, and compromised his integrity, at least in part. It was wrong. It was not good. It was a mistake. He would have had much more fervent support by the people had he not compromised against the truth. I say it again: how can you say "I am against murder" when you campaign for Freddy Krueger (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ZDv&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&spell=1&q=Freddy+Krueger&sa=X&ei=TBatUKz8B8feiALAloCQCA&ved=0CC0QvwUoAA)? It is a blatant contradiction. He would have been much better off supporting his Dad to the end. That would have given him true credibility, and greater support of the people. Yet he cast his lot with corrupt republicans instead. Not wise; in his bones he must know that. That was stupid!

He supported his dad until all of the primaries were over. Mitt Romney was going to be the nominee at that point. If Rand hadn't endorsed Romney, he would have no chance at all to win the GOP nomination in 2016. None. He would've been seen as a traitor to the party and wouldn't have received any more support than Ron received in the primaries. Rand is trying to reach out to a much broader base than Ron reached and os trying to achieve the electoral success that Ron never achieved. The fact that many people here seem to have no idea how politics works is just astonishing to me.

[paulbot24]

To me it is irrelevant whether or not Rand caused his Dad the nomination, but he definitely caused himself a loss of trust, and compromised his integrity, at least in part. It was wrong. It was not good. It was a mistake. He would have had much more fervent support by the people had he not compromised against the truth. I say it again: how can you say "I am against murder" when you campaign for Freddy Krueger (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=ZDv&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&spell=1&q=Freddy+Krueger&sa=X&ei=TBatUKz8B8feiALAloCQCA&ved=0CC0QvwUoAA)? It is a blatant contradiction. He would have been much better off supporting his Dad to the end. That would have given him true credibility, and greater support of the people. Yet he cast his lot with corrupt republicans instead. Not wise; in his bones he must know that. That was stupid!

There's a reason why it is called politics....... You'll notice there was an "R" next to Ron's name as well if you want to talk about casting lots with the corrupt and we all know Ron is not a part of that Boy Scout club of corruption. If you're waiting on the fence for something better.....well get comfortable. Rand is one of ours and he can speak neocon. The only way to defeat the "Here, have some free candy with your free Obamaphone" party.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

He supported his dad until all of the primaries were over. Mitt Romney was going to be the nominee at that point. That is irrelevant to the point I was making.


If Rand hadn't endorsed Romney, he would have no chance at all to win the GOP nomination in 2016. None. He would've been seen as a traitor to the party and wouldn't have received any more support than Ron received in the primaries. I would disagree with that. The momentum of Ron Paul is growing exponentially despite, and most probably BECAUSE of the fact that he never indorses a crook or a tyrant for president. Rand would have ridden this wave his Father rode if he had stuck with the truth.


Rand is trying to reach out to a much broader base than Ron reached and os trying to achieve the electoral success that Ron never achieved. Surely Obama is reaching to a broader base now than Ron Paul ever did. That is the problem. You need to CONVERT people to the correct principles, and you CANNOT do so by endorsing the man who tramples upon them! Get it? That is the point.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

There's a reason why it is called politics....... You'll notice there was an "R" next to Ron's name as well if you want to talk about casting lots with the corrupt and we all know Ron is not a part of that Boy Scout club of corruption. If you're waiting on the fence for something better.....well get comfortable. Rand is one of ours and he can speak neocon. The only way to defeat the "Here, have some free candy with your free Obamaphone" party.You cannot defeat false principles, and promote the Correct ones, by endorsing the candidate who tramples upon them. That is the point. The goal is not to get the broader support of the sheeple by becoming more like Obama, but to CHANGE the sheeple by making them more like Ron Paul. You cannot do so by endorsing the candidate who stands, in most parts, for the exact opposite of Correct Principles! That is a fact! Neither Rand nor you seem to understand this simple truth. At least Ron seem to understand it. So should you.

[Brett85]

I would disagree with that. The momentum of Ron Paul is growing exponentially despite, and most probably BECAUSE of the fact that he never indorses a crook or a tyrant for president. Rand would have ridden this wave his Father rode if he had stuck with the truth.

Surely Obama is reaching to a broader base now than Ron Paul ever did. That is the problem. You need to CONVERT people to the correct principles, and you CANNOT do so by endorsing the man who tramples upon them! Get it? That is the point.

Many of the people who support Ron Paul are independents and Democrats, and many of them didn't even vote in the GOP primary. In order for Rand Paul to have any chance to win the GOP primary, he has to actually win over rank and file GOP voters. He isn't going to do that by refusing to endorse the GOP presidential candidate and get accused of helping President Obama get re-elected.

Rand Paul does have the correct principles. His voting record in Congress proves that, and that's all that matters. Endorsing someone does not mean that you agree with all of their positions! Rand Paul criticized Romney multiple times during the general election when Romney said something he disagreed with.

[paulbot24]

You cannot defeat false principles, and promote the Correct ones, by endorsing the candidate who tramples upon them. That is the point. The goal is not to get the broader support of the sheeple by becoming more like Obama, but to CHANGE the sheeple by making them more like Ron Paul. You cannot do so by endorsing the candidate who stands, in most parts, for the exact opposite of Correct Principles! That is a fact! Neither Rand nor you seem to understand this simple truth. At least Ron seem to understand it. So should you.

He said he would endorse the EVENTUAL nominee, as in, even if it happened to be Herman Cain or even Newt fucking Gingrich. He said this before the primaries. Rand Paul stands for liberty and freedom. If not Rand, then who are you waiting for? Or are you going to lead all of us "sheeple" to it yourself? This herd of cats division BS is what is holding us back. You are waiting for the perfect, principled, virtuous, blah blah who exactly to lead us? In the world of politics? We need to get real, look in the mirror, and realize that waiting around for the "Golden Child" is not going to lead us anywhere but holding the bag in the waiting room, broke and whining.

Rand Paul 2016!!!!

[Brett85]

He said he would endorse the EVENTUAL nominee, as in, even if it happened to be Herman Cain or even Newt fucking Gingrich. He said this before the primaries. Rand Paul stands for liberty and freedom. If not Rand, then who are you waiting for? Or are you going to led all of us "sheeple" to it yourself? This herd of cats division BS is what is holding us back. You are waiting for the perfect, principled, virtuous, blah blah who exactly to lead us? In the world of politics? We need to get real, look in the mirror, and realize waiting around for the "Golden Child" is not going to lead us anywhere but holding the bag in the waiting room, broke and whining.

Rand Paul 2016!!!!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to paulbot24 again."

[Victor Grey]

You cannot defeat false principles, and promote the Correct ones, by endorsing the candidate who tramples upon them. That is the point. The goal is not to get the broader support of the sheeple by becoming more like Obama, but to CHANGE the sheeple by making them more like Ron Paul. You cannot do so by endorsing the candidate who stands, in most parts, for the exact opposite of Correct Principles! That is a fact! Neither Rand nor you seem to understand this simple truth. At least Ron seem to understand it. So should you.

Yeah tell that to every successful political movement since ever.

[braane]

I don't care what a candidate says. This is a doing thing. If a guy isn't doing the right things, then what he says isn't irrelevant (and vice versa) . I don't think endorsements have any real bearing on anything though.

I do see the failure in my logic though. You have a moral obligation to operate under the platform you run on, from a voter's stand-point.

[trey4sports]

I think after the Romney endorsement debacle, Rand figured out real quickly who butters his bread. I've seen him start talking much more libertarian after that backlash. He realized that he couldn't just use us as a stepping stone to power, but needed our continued support to keep him relevant. He's walking a mighty tight rope, but as long as he's slightly leaning towards our side, then I will support him.


Rand is just playing very smart politics. He is very delicately balancing his message between standard conservative points and liberty talking points. He is doing this to build a strong coalition for his run in '16. He did the politically advantageous move of endorsing Romney and i dont think for a second he regrets it.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Rand is just playing very smart politics. He is very delicately balancing his message between standard conservative points and liberty talking points. He is doing this to build a strong coalition for his run in '16. He did the politically advantageous move of endorsing Romney and i dont think for a second he regrets it.



Proud member of the "Libertarians-Voting-For-Obama-Because-We-Want-To-Elect-Rand-In-2016" club.



That is very messed up! You people are off your rocker! For you up is down, wrong is right. You are messed up! And, you are wrong.

[paulbot24]

Glad we got that out of the way. This thread is temporarily derailed. If you'd like to post a response, please try again later.:)

[Brett85]

That is very messed up! You people are off your rocker! For you up is down, wrong is right. You are messed up! And, you are wrong.

Yes, because it's wrong to actually want to have some electoral success in the future, rather than just throwing our money away on a candidate who has no chance of winning.

[Jamesiv1]

He said he would endorse the EVENTUAL nominee, as in, even if it happened to be Herman Cain or even Newt fucking Gingrich. He said this before the primaries. Rand Paul stands for liberty and freedom. If not Rand, then who are you waiting for? Or are you going to led all of us "sheeple" to it yourself? This herd of cats division BS is what is holding us back. You are waiting for the perfect, principled, virtuous, blah blah who exactly to lead us? In the world of politics? We need to get real, look in the mirror, and realize that waiting around for the "Golden Child" is not going to lead us anywhere but holding the bag in the waiting room, broke and whining.

Rand Paul 2016!!!!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to paulbot24 again."

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Yes, because it's wrong to actually want to have some electoral success in the future, rather than just throwing our money away on a candidate who has no chance of winning.If you want a candidate that has a chance of winning vote for Obama.

Ron Paul's numbers are growing EXPONENTIALLY from election to election, don't you get that? You increase those numbers NOT by making him more like Obama, but by making the people more like Ron Paul! If you compromise your principles to "win" your winning will not be valuable. Winning is standing immovable where PRINCIPLE is concerned, otherwise it is losing, even if you "win" like Obama "won." Hitler also "won." See where it got him?

[Brett85]

If you want a candidate that has a chance of winning vote for Obama.

Ron Paul's numbers are growing EXPONENTIALLY from election to election, don't you get that? You increase those numbers NOT by making him more like Obama, but by making the people more like Ron Paul! If you compromise your principles to "win" your winning will not be valuable. Winning is standing immovable where PRINCIPLE is concerned, otherwise it is losing, even if you "win" like Obama "won." Hitler also "won." See where it got him?

I don't believe that you "compromise principles" by endorsing candidates who don't have exactly the same views that you do. Ron Paul endorsed Michele Bachmann and he also endorsed Lamar Smith in Texas, the author of SOPA. Did Ron "compromise his principles" and "sell out" by making those endorsements? Rand has not "compromised his principles" in the way that he's voted in the Senate. He's voted the right way 99% of the time. I don't believe that Rand has compromised any of his core principles.

[whoisjohngalt]

I don't believe that you "compromise principles" by endorsing candidates who don't have exactly the same views that you do. Ron Paul endorsed Michele Bachmann and he also endorsed Lamar Smith in Texas, the author of SOPA. Did Ron "compromise his principles" and "sell out" by making those endorsements? Rand has not "compromised his principles" in the way that he's voted in the Senate. He's voted the right way 99% of the time. I don't believe that Rand has compromised any of his core principles.

It's always amusing to see those who ignore Ron's slew of bad endorsements while eviscerating Rand for his endorsement of Romney. For people who are so obsessed with presidential politics without consideration for down ballot races, you would imagine that they would be drooling at the chance to actually take the White House and bully pulpit at whatever cost. This is the cult of personality group. Wake up. It's not about a man. It's about doing whatever it takes to increase liberty. Not just in philosophy, but in practice.

Rand Paul 2016!!! I'm getting tingles in my leg thinking about it. ;)

[LibertyEagle]

I think after the Romney endorsement debacle, Rand figured out real quickly who butters his bread. I've seen him start talking much more libertarian after that backlash. He realized that he couldn't just use us as a stepping stone to power, but needed our continued support to keep him relevant. He's walking a mighty tight rope, but as long as he's slightly leaning towards our side, then I will support him.

:rolleyes:

Speak for yourself. I have always supported him and so have many others. Not to mention the fact that he is winning over a number of other Republicans.

I'm sorry, but those who haven't even yet gotten over the endorsement, are not people I would trust one damn iota. By in large, they are the same people who didn't think Amash was "libertarian" enough and the same people who wouldn't lift a finger to even help Bentivolio or Amash online.

The good news is that this group of people do not represent the entirety of the liberty movement. Not by a long shot.

Rand hasn't changed a bit. If people think he has, it is only because they are now being forced to look at the many great things he has done and they are looking pretty damn ridiculous continuing their whine.

/end rant

[whoisjohngalt]

The good news is that this group of people do not represent the entirety of the liberty movement. Not by a long shot.


It was tough for me to see people illogically rejecting Rand for awhile. It seemed to be widespread on Facebook and the forums, but I finally realized that this is only the vocal minority and in no way represents the collective consciousness of the liberty movement.

My theory is that people who support Rand are those who are out there doing shit and don't have as much time to spend on their computers whining about him on these two mediums. Thank goodness, that is the great majority of people in the liberty movement.

We can't waste our time trying to convert the stubborn few who remain opposed to Rand anymore. The train has left the station.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I don't believe that you "compromise principles" by endorsing candidates who don't have exactly the same views that you do. Ron Paul endorsed Michele Bachmann and he also endorsed Lamar Smith in Texas, the author of SOPA. Did Ron "compromise his principles" and "sell out" by making those endorsements? Rand has not "compromised his principles" in the way that he's voted in the Senate. He's voted the right way 99% of the time. I don't believe that Rand has compromised any of his core principles.Ron did compromise. He is imperfect, according to his own admission. He never endorsed a clown/tyrant for president yet, though. Rand took his fathers imperfections and multiplied them by 10. I agree, his votes in the Senate (as far as I have seen) are pretty good. He is probably the best Senator we have. But he is still a "little bit pregnant." Will see.

Thanks.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I still wouldn't vote for him as a president (because he believes in taxation a.k.a. theft) but he did a really good job on this filibuster! Go Rand!

Stand with Rand! Sen. Rand Paul takes determined stand against insanity of Obama’s claimed power to kill Americans (http://www.prisonplanet.com/stand-with-rand-sen-rand-paul-takes-determined-stand-against-insanity-of-obamas-claimed-power-to-kill-americans.html)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOy4vRTF6Jc


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQlbY8qygSU


It’s now clear: Obama intends to use drone strikes to kill American journalists and political enemies (http://www.prisonplanet.com/its-now-clear-obama-intends-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-american-journalists-and-political-enemies.html)



Rand Paul and the Filibuster (http://www.prisonplanet.com/rand-paul-and-the-filibuster.html)
Ryan W. McMaken
Lew Rockwell Blog (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133393.html)

March 7, 2013

People who follow me on Twitter know that I criticize Rand Paul. I do this not because I think he should be a clone of his father, and that he’s somehow “betrayed” Ron Paul’s followers. On the contrary, as I’ve noted before, I think Rand has always been quite up front (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/115225.html) about his non-libertarian views. I don’t think he’s attempted to deceive anyone on this.

My primary motivation in criticizing Rand is to illustrate the reality of his positions to many of his followers who seem to think that the libertarian movement should view Rand Paul as the next Ron Paul. They should not, regardless of the last name of the Senator from Kentucky, because Rand Paul is not, in my view, enough of a consistent defender of liberty. Nor is he enough of a known commodity to warrant all of the uncritical and blind support I see coming out of the so-called, and oxymoronically named, “libertarian conservatives.”

However, I have to give credit where it’s due, and Rand Paul’s filibuster today is good for at least two reasons.

First of all, it’s good because it’s a filibuster. The claim that the US Senate is “the world’s greatest deliberative body” has long been laughable. The Senate mostly rubber-stamps the edicts of the president when he’s in the same party as the Senate majority. Even when the majority is in a different party than the president, rarely is anything more than token resistence offered to the president’s appointments and treaties. This is made obvious by the fact that filibusters are so incredibly rare as are any actual rejections of the president’s nominees. The Senate was created as a check on both the foreign and domestic policy of the president, yet, we see virtually no such thing ever out of the Senate.


The fact that Senator Paul is willing to stop the government in its tracks for a few hours with a filibuster is a credit to him and probably stems from a decent understanding of what the Senate is supposed to do. Not only is the filibuster a good thing because it can obstruct the will of both senators and presidents, but it is also good because it serves to empower minority rights over the majority. This speech (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/byrd7.html) by the late Senator Robert Byrd, delivered back when it was the GOP that was trying to kill the filibuster, explains how the filibuster stands as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority and outlines many of the filibuster’s virtues.

Secondly, this particular filibuster is good because it has been specifically used to oppose and discredit one of the worst abuses of the presidency in many years. And that’s saying a lot, since the history of the presidency is primarily a history of usurpation. If presidents can claim the right to kill anyone they want at any time, as the current president has indeed done, then we have entered the final phase of complete lawlessness. I think Rand Paul is sincere in his opposition to this, and the fact that he is laboring nearly alone in his efforts to discredit this practice illustrates just how utterly useless and immoral the US Senate actually is. (I should note by the way, that I do not think the opposition to drone killings offered today by Sens. Rubio and Cruz is sincere.)

Moreover, Paul’s filibuster is simply an embarrassment to the regime which counts on -and gets!- nearly unanimous and bipartisan support of all its most horrible abuses from TARP to NDAA.

I’m glad that Rand Paul has finally found the issue that he is willing to go to the mat over. For all his inconsistencies and caving to the neocons on Iran and other issues, he’s still apparently one of only a tiny handful of politicians in Washington who is willing to say much at all about the final destruction of the Bill of Rights. While Paul may be conventional on many issues, his peculiarity and commitment on this issue is laudable. And, the fact that he stands nearly alone should frighten anyone who is still uninformed enough to think there is a functioning system of checks and balances in Washington. Paul’s stand should also serve as a source of everlasting shame to the so-called Progressives who obviously care not one iota for human rights, democracy or decent government at all, as long as one of their own is the current elected dictator.


Sen. Rand Paul: My filibuster was just the beginning (http://www.prisonplanet.com/sen-rand-paul-my-filibuster-was-just-the-beginning.html)