Havent been on in a bit. So are we going Rand Paul 2016?

[DXDoug]

I would like to know so i can get started now sooner is better then later.

[fisharmor]

A significant percentage of the liberty movement thinks Rand is a douche.

[Jeremy]

A significant percentage of the liberty movement thinks Rand is a douche.Speak for yourself....................

[Jeremy]

And to answer the OP: yes.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I would like to know so i can get started now sooner is better then later.
This is the motto

http://i48.tinypic.com/xehyu.jpg

[Bastiat's The Law]

A significant percentage of the liberty movement thinks Rand is a douche.
For those people


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SammOxW_4w0

[amy31416]

So far, I'm okay with Rand. Sure I'll be analyzing his votes on everything, but what do we have to lose?

The only deal-breaker with me is if his campaign hires Collins in any capacity.

[Danke]

So far, I'm okay with Rand. Sure I'll be analyzing his votes on everything, but what do we have to lose?

The only deal-breaker with me is if his campaign hires Collins in any capacity.

http://i55.tinypic.com/2e4dder.jpg

[Galileo Galilei]

I just ordered my Rand Paul bumper stickers.

[John F Kennedy III]

So far, I'm okay with Rand. Sure I'll be analyzing his votes on everything, but what do we have to lose?

The only deal-breaker with me is if his campaign hires Collins in any capacity.

Seriously not joking, I will campaign against Rand if he hires Da Collins. And everyone knows I love Rand.

[PaleoPaul]

So far, I'm okay with Rand. Sure I'll be analyzing his votes on everything, but what do we have to lose?

The only deal-breaker with me is if his campaign hires Collins in any capacity.
OK, I've gotta ask...

There are a handful of you on this forum who have a beef with Matt Collins. What's your deal with him?

[Maximus]

Rand Paul or bust

[Sola_Fide]

Cue the atomistic anarchist response: "there is no we...we're all individuals".

[bunklocoempire]

I'm kinda leaning towards Rubio....

*tee hee*


Originally Posted by amy31416

So far, I'm okay with Rand. Sure I'll be analyzing his votes on everything, but what do we have to lose?

The only deal-breaker with me is if his campaign hires Collins in any capacity.

This. As well as any other employee of ours -gotta watch 'em. By the way, what is a Collins? An escort service?

*tee hee -j/k Matt*

[Bastiat's The Law]

http://i55.tinypic.com/2e4dder.jpg
LOL! :D

[Bastiat's The Law]

I just ordered my Rand Paul bumper stickers.
Where from? I haven't seen anything yet.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Cue the atomistic anarchist response: "there is no we...we're all individuals".
or "I find crowds collectivist."

[amy31416]

OK, I've gotta ask...

There are a handful of you on this forum who have a beef with Matt Collins. What's your deal with him?

He's a low-functioning sociopath who takes, never gives--and he thinks we owe him for things that he did not do. You can not expect the truth from him. If you want more details, I could give them, but I'm pretty tired of it.

[amy31416]

dupe

[Shane Harris]

Regardless of his name he is the most libertarian Senator we've had since Robert Taft.

[Reece]

Cue the atomistic anarchist response: "there is no we...we're all individuals".

I haven't seen many anarchists say that. I think it depends on the "we." If you say, for example, "we are humans," then this is indeed correct because everyone here is a human. However, saying, "are we supporting candidate A in 2016?" is a bit different, because not everyone in this "we" will probably support candidate A. So, an anarchist saying "there is no we...we're all individuals" might not be a contradiction depending on the original "we" being referred to.

That's not to say that it would be a useful thing to say, because I think everyone here knows that not everyone will support the same candidate.

[John F Kennedy III]

He's a low-functioning sociopath who takes, never gives--and he thinks we owe him for things that he did not do. You can not expect the truth from him. If you want more details, I could give them, but I'm pretty tired of it.

This. And that ain't the half of it. He should've been permabanned at least a year ago.

[eleganz]

A significant percentage of the liberty movement thinks Rand is a douche.

significant? nah.

douche? nah.

A chunk definitely doesn't like what he did, a smaller chunk despises him.

I would say less than half of the movement don't know if they can trust him.

In our group, its the anarchists who don't like Rand.

The GOP renewers like him still and will work for him.

The rest that fall in between are skeptical but will support him.

And in my opinion, I'm pretty sure its like this throughout the country.

The group that counts the most is the GOP renewer group though, they pull their own weight and are the leaders in the movement.

The anarchists have always been in it to rub in how horrible government is and bring it all down.

Those in between are followers.

Sorry if I offended anybody but its from my experience that I say this.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

There is a small fraction of the liberty movement that doesn't know the distinction between engaging realistically in politics (which means Rand Paul has to throw out an endorsement to a mainstream Republican every once in a while to stay in their good graces) and fighting for liberty (which Rand Paul does with every one of his votes and speeches in the Senate). These are the people who think Rand is a "douche".

Those who understand Rand's strategy and are realistic about the political process are supporting Rand for 2016, and that's the vast majority of the liberty movement.

[bunklocoempire]

Rand is the Mario Lemieux of politics, and as he is, he should be watched as such. :)

Go Rand! Careful not to get any GOP on ya!

[bunklocoempire]

The following is from a hardcore Fox watcher Bush lover from a different forum who is only interested in a 'R' win. (Rmoney voter) This is what we're dealing with, and presented for strategy refinements. It's a hell of a tightrope walk.:


A question then: Who would you guys, FW and AJMD, have run ?

Here's my problem: If you say "Ron Paul" you would have lost even bigger than Romney did.

Look, I've long thought that Ron Paul was a principled libertarian/conservative. He "gets it" on guns, and on the Federal Reserve, like no one who's run from either dem or repub party in decades "got it." Okay, that's a given.

But ... Ron Paul was also the tiniest of niche candidates, a Congressman. Congressmen do not become Presidents, Ever. Does. Not. Happen. Ever.

Ron Paul also never had a meaningful piece of legislation passed .... ever. He could not build coalitions. Ever. Perhaps the best thing he's ever done in Congress is attempt to shine a light on the rotten doings of the Federal Reserve, and to challenge its very existence. Hey, that's great. It really is. But then what ?


Soooooo.... who then ? By the way, if you say RAND Paul in 2016, I'll be listening. Now there is a member of the Paul family who might do things which we could all be happy about. But his Dad ?

Guys, the truth is that Ron Paul never wanted to be president. He's been much more content being a gadfly. A gadfly that I'm happy has been there, making noise about the Fed Reserve, and more, but a gadfly is all Ron Paul has ever been. I believe that Rand Paul is much, much smarter. And just as principled as his dad.

- DixieBoy

[RickyJ]

There is a small fraction of the liberty movement that doesn't know the distinction between engaging realistically in politics (which means Rand Paul has to throw out an endorsement to a mainstream Republican every once in a while to stay in their good graces) and fighting for liberty (which Rand Paul does with every one of his votes and speeches in the Senate). These are the people who think Rand is a "douche".

Those who understand Rand's strategy and are realistic about the political process are supporting Rand for 2016, and that's the vast majority of the liberty movement.

He did more than endorse the snake Romney, he campaigned for him. Also all his votes are not on the side of liberty, sanctions against Iran and aid to Israel. I will wait and see what he does as Senator before I decide to vote for him or not.

[Liberty74]

A significant percentage of the liberty movement thinks Rand is a douche.

I like Rand as a Senator. Rand is from my home state of BIG BLUE so of course I supported him and still do because he is among one of the better politicians IMO. However, I think it is premature to throw support behind Rand in 2016 who has yet to prove himself on much of anything or just people his last name ends in Paul.

Listen, I told you people for a year now that the third party is the best route - 70% of Americans are tired of the two parties. Then I have been telling you for months that if Romney won and disappointed (that would have happened) or if Romney lost (he did) that the Tea Party and so called conservatives would want to start a third party. The GOP at the national level is DEAD. It's over. Now Palin, Levin and Cain are advocating such third party. According to polls, they could take 40% of the GOP with them. Combine that with a good junk of Indy voters and you have yourself a viable third party.

Judge Nap 2016 as an Indy candidate. It's time we bust this shit open and take down the establishment by uniting the people. You can't unite the people behind the GOP. The demographics are changing and you will never get the anti-war liberals to back someone with an "R" after their name. But you can and will with an "I."

[CaptLouAlbano]

Listen, I told you people for a year now that the third party is the best route - 70% of Americans are tired of the two parties. Then I have been telling you for months that if Romney won and disappointed (that would have happened) or if Romney lost (he did) that the Tea Party and so called conservatives would want to start a third party. The GOP at the national level is DEAD. It's over. Now Palin, Levin and Cain are advocating such third party. According to polls, they could take 40% of the GOP with them. Combine that with a good junk of Indy voters and you have yourself a viable third party.

Political suicide. If the GOP split they would lose control of the US House, 29 State Senates and 31 State Houses (if I counted them correctly). Basically what would happen is the Democratic party would be in control of the House, Senate and every state legislature. With the power of incumbency (on average 80% of incumbents are reelected), it could take a decade or more before this new party could gain control of a legislative body.

[fisharmor]

Whatever, everyone. I know for a fact that other posters here thin he's a douche, ad I know for a fact that many of the posters who were purged or voluntarily left also think he's a douche.
If you think he can win without our support, good on ya. I'm sure intentionally alienating a voting block can't possibly have negative consequences.

I also like how you guys just can't stop taking digs at anarchists. When you're the ones constantly bringing it up, you do realize it only promotes the idea, right?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Whatever, everyone. I know for a fact that other posters here thin he's a douche, ad I know for a fact that many of the posters who were purged or voluntarily left also think he's a douche.
If you think he can win without our support, good on ya. I'm sure intentionally alienating a voting block can't possibly have negative consequences.

There's a growing wave of support for Rand in 2016 that exists outside these forums. It comes from men and women who are active and involved in the GOP, many of whom spend little, if any, time on discussion forums and sites like this. I am very involved on a local level and will be running for county committee next year. In my conversations with political activists, GOP club members, committee men and women and run of the mill people who aren't directly and actively involved (for example guys on my golf league), Rand's name has come up far more than Ron's name ever did. And this is all within the last week. That is extremely encouraging.

You are free of course to support whomever you wish to support, but to think that Rand cannot win without the support of a handful of people who call him a "douche" is ignoring reality.

[Galileo Galilei]

Where from? I haven't seen anything yet.

I called someone I know on Rand's staff and she is sending me stickers from his 2010 senate campaign (I live in Wisconsin). But I have seen Rand 2016 bumpers stickers for sale on the Internet.

[eleganz]

Now is the perfect time for all of us to get involved with local Tea Party groups as well and start drilling Rand Paul in their heads, they already have a favorable impression of him.

[cajuncocoa]

Now is the perfect time for all of us to get involved with local Tea Party groups as well and start drilling Rand Paul in their heads, they already have a favorable impression of him.Let's say many RPF members join their local Tea Parties to push Rand...here's how a typical discussion about him may go:

Tea Party: "I like Rand, but I'm worried, dear...his Father scared me to death with his foreign policy talk! Please tell me that Rand is nothing like his Dad. Is he?"

How do you answer?

[Bastiat's The Law]

significant? nah.

douche? nah.

A chunk definitely doesn't like what he did, a smaller chunk despises him.

I would say less than half of the movement don't know if they can trust him.

In our group, its the anarchists who don't like Rand.

The GOP renewers like him still and will work for him.

The rest that fall in between are skeptical but will support him.

And in my opinion, I'm pretty sure its like this throughout the country.

The group that counts the most is the GOP renewer group though, they pull their own weight and are the leaders in the movement.

The anarchists have always been in it to rub in how horrible government is and bring it all down.

Those in between are followers.

Sorry if I offended anybody but its from my experience that I say this.
That about sums it up. The apolitical types are only here to distract and undermine our efforts.

[Bastiat's The Law]

There is a small fraction of the liberty movement that doesn't know the distinction between engaging realistically in politics (which means Rand Paul has to throw out an endorsement to a mainstream Republican every once in a while to stay in their good graces) and fighting for liberty (which Rand Paul does with every one of his votes and speeches in the Senate). These are the people who think Rand is a "douche".

Those who understand Rand's strategy and are realistic about the political process are supporting Rand for 2016, and that's the vast majority of the liberty movement.
Spot on assessment. +Rep

[LibertyEagle]

Seriously not joking, I will campaign against Rand if he hires Da Collins. And everyone knows I love Rand.

If you did that, it would make you an ass; not to mention a traitor.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I like Rand as a Senator. Rand is from my home state of BIG BLUE so of course I supported him and still do because he is among one of the better politicians IMO. However, I think it is premature to throw support behind Rand in 2016 who has yet to prove himself on much of anything or just people his last name ends in Paul.

Listen, I told you people for a year now that the third party is the best route - 70% of Americans are tired of the two parties. Then I have been telling you for months that if Romney won and disappointed (that would have happened) or if Romney lost (he did) that the Tea Party and so called conservatives would want to start a third party. The GOP at the national level is DEAD. It's over. Now Palin, Levin and Cain are advocating such third party. According to polls, they could take 40% of the GOP with them. Combine that with a good junk of Indy voters and you have yourself a viable third party.

Judge Nap 2016 as an Indy candidate. It's time we bust this shit open and take down the establishment by uniting the people. You can't unite the people behind the GOP. The demographics are changing and you will never get the anti-war liberals to back someone with an "R" after their name. But you can and will with an "I."
Not in a hundred years will that happen. The third party talk has been put to bed, the nails in the coffin have been pounded. Just look at the liberty movements results running as republicans and taking party positions. Secondly, Napolitano said he likes being in the media educating people there, that's the role he likes and excels at.

[Bastiat's The Law]

There's a growing wave of support for Rand in 2016 that exists outside these forums. It comes from men and women who are active and involved in the GOP, many of whom spend little, if any, time on discussion forums and sites like this. I am very involved on a local level and will be running for county committee next year. In my conversations with political activists, GOP club members, committee men and women and run of the mill people who aren't directly and actively involved (for example guys on my golf league), Rand's name has come up far more than Ron's name ever did. And this is all within the last week. That is extremely encouraging.

You are free of course to support whomever you wish to support, but to think that Rand cannot win without the support of a handful of people who call him a "douche" is ignoring reality.
Correct. A handful of misguided anarchists don't swing elections. I don't think they brought much to the table anyway. For every perceived person that thinks Rand is a "douche" we will gain a wider audience to the tune of 1:10,000. I'd rather take ten thousand people that actually vote, donate, and campaign than having a couple youtube commenters.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Now is the perfect time for all of us to get involved with local Tea Party groups as well and start drilling Rand Paul in their heads, they already have a favorable impression of him.
I'm going to buy his Tea Party book to the groups I frequent. Then later on I will provide them his Government Bullies book.

[cajuncocoa]

Correct. A handful of misguided anarchists don't swing elections. I don't think they brought much to the table anyway. For every perceived person that thinks Rand is a "douche" we will gain a wider audience to the tune of 1:10,000. I'd rather take ten thousand people that actually vote, donate, and campaign than having a couple youtube commenters.It really gets tiresome reading your insults toward Ron Paul supporters all day every day. What exactly is your beef with Rand's Dad anyway?

[ronpaulfollower999]

I'm an AnCap and have no problem supporting Rand, so I don't know what people are talking about. :confused:

[PatriotOne]

I would like to know so i can get started now sooner is better then later.

I am! (Squeezes in to make room aboard the Rand Paul battleship for ya :D). Full speed ahead!

[PatriotOne]

I'm an AnCap and have no problem supporting Rand, so I don't know what people are talking about. :confused:

Bastiat doesn't include you in his "handful of anarchists" statement". Cajun thinks he/she speaks for all of you though.

[cajuncocoa]

Bastiat doesn't include you in his "handful of anarchists" statement". Cajun thinks he/she speaks for all of you though.LOL...you have no clue what cajun thinks. Don't try to speak for me again.

[eleganz]

I'm an AnCap and have no problem supporting Rand, so I don't know what people are talking about. :confused:

Just gave a general idea of how my local group dynamic works. I know it isn't 100% accurate but I'm willing to bet that a lot of the local groups generally have the same kind of dynamic.

[PatriotOne]

LOL...you have no clue what cajun thinks. Don't try to speak for me again.

I will as soon as you don't speak on these boards at all. I see you have stepped up your negativity again. You really need to be scrubbed...you are a positive energy vampire.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Now is the perfect time for all of us to get involved with local Tea Party groups as well and start drilling Rand Paul in their heads, they already have a favorable impression of him.

This is a great idea. There are some very well organized Tea Party sites and groups out there. They are pretty sizable as well. Freedomworks seems to have a decent way to connect with other people. I haven't spent much time looking through it all, but it seems like a nice web based system to connect with people locally in the real world.

[Bastiat's The Law]

It really gets tiresome reading your insults toward Ron Paul supporters all day every day. What exactly is your beef with Rand's Dad anyway?
If you feel insulted by that comment then you are overly sensitive like Rick Santorum.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NwTnMeqcfs

[tsetsefly]

I would like to know so i can get started now sooner is better then later.

Sooner means getting yourself involved in local GOP and getting into some positions of power at local GOP, this to minimize the shenanigans that will come our way in 2016 primaries

[tsetsefly]

The following is from a hardcore Fox watcher Bush lover from a different forum who is only interested in a 'R' win. (Rmoney voter) This is what we're dealing with, and presented for strategy refinements. It's a hell of a tightrope walk.:

There is no doubt Rand is much more appealing to republicans than Ron and if he has to accomplish this by endorsing Romney, then I don't care. All I care about is his voting record.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Bastiat doesn't include you in his "handful of anarchists" statement". Cajun thinks he/she speaks for all of you though.
Precisely. I want the liberty movement to be a big tent as long as we're all pulling in the same direction. It's about addition, not subtraction. I want to add as many into the fold as we can. I just call those out who either sitting idle or pulling opposite of us. The people pulling in the opposite direction will become more clear as the Rand Paul 2016 campaign gets into full swing.

[NoOneButPaul]

Whatever part of the Liberty movement doesn't support Rand won't matter.... the amount of purists Rand loses will be more than made up for by the legions of NeoCons he'll trick into liking him.

[cajuncocoa]

I will as soon as you don't speak on these boards at all. I see you have stepped up your negativity again. You really need to be scrubbed...you are a positive energy vampire.Keep reporting me. If the mods agree with you, I will take my banishment. Until then, you'll have to put up with me expressing my opinions and asking questions.

[PaleoPaul]

Whatever part of the Liberty movement doesn't support Rand won't matter.... the amount of purists Rand loses will be more than made up for by the legions of NeoCons he'll trick into liking him.
BINGO! It's not like the purists were ever going to vote for him anyway.

[cajuncocoa]

If you feel insulted by that comment then you are overly sensitive like Rick Santorum.



LOL...you're probably more like Rick Santorum than I could ever be (which is to say I'm nothing like him). I'm not even a member of his political party.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Precisely. I want the liberty movement to be a big tent as long as we're all pulling in the same direction. It's about addition, not subtraction. I want to add as many into the fold as we can. I just call those out who either sitting idle or pulling opposite of us. The people pulling in the opposite direction will become more clear as the Rand Paul 2016 campaign gets into full swing.

Many of the anarcho-types who support Ron believe in spreading ideas over political action - as Ron does. Why do you feel that those who feel as Ron does are pulling in the opposite direction (and what direction would this be, anyway)?

[Bastiat's The Law]

Whatever part of the Liberty movement doesn't support Rand won't matter.... the amount of purists Rand loses will be more than made up for by the legions of NeoCons he'll trick into liking him.
In face to face conversations I don't really bump into many hardcore neocons anymore. The general rank and file though were under the impression that Ron was a pacifistic and wouldn't defend the country. You had to spend hours of education and energy smashing that misinformation, so it was highly inefficient. Rand presents his views in a much more palatable form so resistance will almost be nonexistent on the ground-level.

[NoOneButPaul]

BINGO! It's not like the purists were ever going to vote for him anyway.

The other issue I find is a lot of these people just refuse to accept anything that's popular or mainstream. The second it's actually popular or mainstream then the person leading the charge is doing it all wrong and the movement is all wrong. The fact is a lot of these people have been fringe their entire lives and they don't respond to anything else but that.

If we don't stay a tireless minority forever we're somehow turning into evil zombies or something... I think a lot of people here just like being able to argue from the fringe and the second they can't then they automatically assume it's all wrong.

I really didn't like Rand at all 6 months ago but watching the way he played the game from the Romney endorsement on really caused me to reassess his politically savy-ness... Rand is our trojan horse... he's clearly one of us if you actually listen to what he's saying or read his newest book you'll see that. A lot of the people who think Rand is bad just aren't paying attention and can't get past a crappy endorsement (which btw, was clearly for political purposes and Ron himself made a good amount of bad endorsements over the last 60 days).

Clearly he gets it, he's just not going to preach it the way his father did and it's going to cause a lot of people to say he's a phony or a liar or whatever... the truth is he's just fighting the battle a different way... a way I think will actually win.

In 2016 I think our ideas will look even more attractive and Rand will clean up. But I thought Doug Wead nailed it the other day when he said it's going to be on us to accept things like only closing 825 military bases instead of all 900... there are going to be places where he doesn't go all the way when he's campaigning simply because he's trying to get elected.

We're going to have to see past that... he IS the trojan horse.

[fisharmor]

[MQUOTE=NoOneButPaul;4727958]Whatever part of the Liberty movement doesn't support Rand won't matter.... the amount of purists Rand loses will be more than made up for by the legions of NeoCons he'll trick into liking him.[/QUOTE]

If that's true, then good for you.
I just hope for your sake that they don't start to develop a conscience.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Many of the anarcho-types who support Ron believe in spreading ideas over political action - as Ron does. Why do you feel that those who feel as Ron does are pulling in the opposite direction (and what direction would this be, anyway)?
Sorry, but you're probably closer to Kokesh than Ron. Ron made a career in politics and belonging to a major party. I want to see practical political change in this country within my lifetime, I'm not interested in having philosophical debates at the local Olive Garden. For far too long libertarians and others have lived in the clouds daydreaming about pie-in-the-sky stuff. My job is to take the vitals signs of everyone and direct the useful alive people into something productive and allow the dreamers and driftwood to drift away.

[Sola_Fide]

Let's say many RPF members join their local Tea Parties to push Rand...here's how a typical discussion about him may go:

Tea Party: "I like Rand, but I'm worried, dear...his Father scared me to death with his foreign policy talk! Please tell me that Rand is nothing like his Dad. Is he?"

How do you answer?

I have had this exact discussion recently. I tell the truth.

Rand is not exactly like Ron on foreign policy. Instead of complete and immediate withdraw from the middle east, Rand would like to reduce our footprint gradually. Rand doesn't think we should be "everywhere all the time". (At this point in the conversation, the neocon breathes a little sigh of relief...Rand isn't completely "kooky" to them).

But this opens up the perfect opportunity to talk about:

1. The effect of wars on our debt, which most conservatives have to acknowledge, and

2. Rand's position on Constitutional wars. And if the neocon has any respect for the Constitution, I can get them to understand that a dictator in the White House should not be able to start nation-building wars whenever he wants.

[cajuncocoa]

I have had this exact discussion recently. I tell the truth.

Rand is not exactly like Ron on foreign policy. Instead of complete and immediate withdraw from the middle east, Rand would like to reduce our footprint gradually. Rand doesn't think we should be "everywhere all the time". (At this point in the conversation, the neocon breathes a little sigh of relief...Rand isn't completely "kooky" to them).

But this opens up the perfect opportunity to talk about:

1. The effect of wars on our debt, which most conservatives have to acknowledge, and

2. Rand's position on Constitutional wars. And if the neocon has any respect for the Constitution, I can get them to understand that a dictator in the White House should not be able to start nation-building wars whenever he wants.

THANK YOU (and +rep). I can accept that as a good answer, and one that doesn't throw Ron and his supporters under the bus. I hope all other Rand supporters follow your lead.

[July]

I have had this exact discussion recently. I tell the truth.

Rand is not exactly like Ron on foreign policy. Instead of complete and immediate withdraw from the middle east, Rand would like to reduce our footprint gradually. Rand doesn't think we should be "everywhere all the time". (At this point in the conversation, the neocon breathes a little sigh of relief...Rand isn't completely "kooky" to them).

But this opens up the perfect opportunity to talk about:

1. The effect of wars on our debt, which most conservatives have to acknowledge, and

2. Rand's position on Constitutional wars. And if the neocon has any respect for the Constitution, I can get them to understand that a dictator in the White House should not be able to start nation-building wars whenever he wants.

This. +rep

[alucard13mmfmj]

I have had this exact discussion recently. I tell the truth.

Rand is not exactly like Ron on foreign policy. Instead of complete and immediate withdraw from the middle east, Rand would like to reduce our footprint gradually. Rand doesn't think we should be "everywhere all the time". (At this point in the conversation, the neocon breathes a little sigh of relief...Rand isn't completely "kooky" to them).

But this opens up the perfect opportunity to talk about:

1. The effect of wars on our debt, which most conservatives have to acknowledge, and

2. Rand's position on Constitutional wars. And if the neocon has any respect for the Constitution, I can get them to understand that a dictator in the White House should not be able to start nation-building wars whenever he wants.

I think we should give Rand some room to let him work the rhetoric. He can lie (like most politicians do), but for the good of the movement.

Sometimes he is going to say things we won't like, but that is just rhetoric. Most politicians say good things, but do bad things. We should give him some room if he says bad things, but do good things. You know what I mean? Politicians do the opposite of what they say! Obama says good things, does bad things. Rand can say bad things, do good things.
------

at any rate i find it interesting that people are all fired up for something 4 years down the road that may or may not happen XD... but i guess this is TRUE hope. Not the garbage hope that obama keeps saying.

[specsaregood]

Tea Party: "I like Rand, but I'm worried, dear...his Father scared me to death with his foreign policy talk! Please tell me that Rand is nothing like his Dad. Is he?"

How do you answer?
I would answer it like Rand does: The funny thing about foreign policy is there is a group saying you have to be everywhere all thetime and we have to be police man of the world. There is another group that says we shouldn't be anywhere and not talk to anybody. I argue that perhaps we could start with some middle ground, why are we paying to protect europe? Why are americans having to give foreign aid to countries that protect our enemies? Why are americans borrowing money from china, then giving it back to them as aid? I tried to get a vote just to say, "hey there should be some conditions on our aid" and i only got 10 senators to vote for it! Is there no room for debate on these subjects?

[Sola_Fide]

at any rate i find it interesting that people are all fired up for something 4 years down the road that may or may not happen XD... but i guess this is TRUE hope. Not the garbage hope that obama keeps saying.

Haha...the funny thing is, I've been working on Rand-for-President in my head before he even ran for Senate in 2009.

The reason Rand could work in 2016 is because Ron has pushed the country in Rand's direction for the past 8 years.

[Agorism]

We need more GOP chairmen for next time I think

[69360]

double

[69360]

Tea Party: "I like Rand, but I'm worried, dear...his Father scared me to death with his foreign policy talk! Please tell me that Rand is nothing like his Dad. Is he?"

How do you answer?

He wants the president to go to congress and declare all wars.

He want to keep our troops home, safe and defending our borders not the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

He would not interfere in Isreal's right to defend itself.

[alucard13mmfmj]

He wants the president to go to congress and declare all wars.

He want to keep our troops home, safe and defending our borders not the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

He would not interfere in Isreal's right to defend itself. And will send military aid to Israel IF they request our help and he gets congressional approval

=p... I think most voters will want us to protect our allies if they are in trouble.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I think we should give Rand some room to let him work the rhetoric. He can lie (like most politicians do), but for the good of the movement.

Sometimes he is going to say things we won't like, but that is just rhetoric. Most politicians say good things, but do bad things. We should give him some room if he says bad things, but do good things. You know what I mean? Politicians do the opposite of what they say! Obama says good things, does bad things. Rand can say bad things, do good things.
------

at any rate i find it interesting that people are all fired up for something 4 years down the road that may or may not happen XD... but i guess this is TRUE hope. Not the garbage hope that obama keeps saying.
I'm fired up because I think Rand has the right prescription to fundamentally change the GOP and the public is so hungry to hear that message from a major party. He will also bring a lot liberty candidates along with him into office, he will have long coattails.

[itshappening]

I wonder how Rand - or any president for that matter - will deal with the worsening situation of China and Japan.

If China take back those islands it is technically an attack on Japan and the U.S is bound by treaty to defend Japan, which means a war with China.

Something to think about there...

[alucard13mmfmj]

I wonder how Rand - or any president for that matter - will deal with the worsening situation of China and Japan.

If China take back those islands it is technically an attack on Japan and the U.S is bound by treaty to defend Japan, which means a war with China.

Something to think about there...

Gotta honor treaty AND help our allies if they got attacked. Although, I prefer that we not be automatically be included in the battle unless Japan asks for help and congressional approval was obtained.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

He did more than endorse the snake Romney, he campaigned for him. Also all his votes are not on the side of liberty, sanctions against Iran and aid to Israel. I will wait and see what he does as Senator before I decide to vote for him or not.

While I don't totally agree with every single one of Rand Paul's votes, it should be noted that sanctions are not unconstitutional per se, and that the sanctions Rand voted for were sanctions only against Iran's Central Bank (Justin Amash voted for these same sanctions), not against the Iranian people in general. As for the vote on the $9 billion loan to Israel, that was a voice vote, not a roll call vote--we don't know how individual Senators voted. Rand has been pretty clear in his speeches and interviews that even aid to Israel needs to be cut, amongst aid to all the other countries.

[Uriah]

For those people


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SammOxW_4w0

Good video. He speaks truth.

[Uriah]

I wonder how Rand - or any president for that matter - will deal with the worsening situation of China and Japan.

If China take back those islands it is technically an attack on Japan and the U.S is bound by treaty to defend Japan, which means a war with China.

Something to think about there...

China is not that stupid. For all of our politicians errors, they aren't stupid enough to go to war with China. Our economy depends upon theirs and their economy is propped up by ours.

[Southerner]

I don't know what "we" or "you" or anyone else is or will be doing, but IF Rand Paul runs for POTUS (or senator, or dogcatcher of some county in Kentucky) in 2016, he will have my full support.

[Occam's Banana]

In our group, its the anarchists who don't like Rand.

I'm an anarchist. I've got no particular problems with Rand (so far). I think he's just peachy.

I don't think he should run for POTUS, and I hope that he does not. But that's only due to strategic considerations


The anarchists have always been in it to rub in how horrible government is and bring it all down.


Sorry if I offended anybody but its from my experience that I say this.

I'm not offended. But in the future you might want to use phrasing like "some anarchists" instead of "the anarchists."

Which is not to imply that I don't think government is horrible. I do. ;)

But I'm not in this to "rub it in."

[LibertyEagle]

It really gets tiresome reading your insults toward Ron Paul supporters all day every day. What exactly is your beef with Rand's Dad anyway?

That wasn't what he was doing at all and you damn well know it.

But, I do see what a couple of you are up to. You are trying to drive a wedge between Ron Paul and Rand Paul supporters; pushing the idea that one cannot be a supporter of BOTH of them.

The jig is up, Cajun.

And for that matter, what the hell are you doing spreading your BS about Rand in RAND PAUL's own subforum?

[LibertyEagle]

Keep reporting me. If the mods agree with you, I will take my banishment. Until then, you'll have to put up with me expressing my opinions and asking questions.

Which Mod is telling you that you are being reported? Eh?

[cajuncocoa]

Which Mod is telling you that you are being reported? Eh?No one told me, LE. No one needed to...they made it perfectly clear with the comments they were making.

[LibertyEagle]

No one told me, LE. No one needed to...they made it perfectly clear with the comments they were making.
What comments were those, Cajun? Or was it that you knew you were doing things in Rand Paul's subforum that deserved to be reported?

[CaseyJones]

Keep reporting me. If the mods agree with you, I will take my banishment. Until then, you'll have to put up with me expressing my opinions and asking questions.

bye then

[PatriotOne]

No one told me, LE. No one needed to...they made it perfectly clear with the comments they were making.

Sure Cajun :rolleyes:. Now your psychic. I said nothing about reporting you and yet you knew you were reported. Who told you?

[PatriotOne]

NV

[Shane Harris]

I'm an AnCap and have no problem supporting Rand, so I don't know what people are talking about. :confused:

same

[EBounding]

Let's say many RPF members join their local Tea Parties to push Rand...here's how a typical discussion about him may go:

Tea Party: "I like Rand, but I'm worried, dear...his Father scared me to death with his foreign policy talk! Please tell me that Rand is nothing like his Dad. Is he?"

How do you answer?

This is a good question that we all need to prepare for, especially if anyone's going to be involved in the GOP. Most rank and file Republicans think Ron Paul would have gutted the military and would be too reluctant to go to war. There's no point arguing those assumptions with them. Their main concern is "safety". We have to demonstrate that a non-interventionist policy makes us "safer", not weaker.

I'll have to think about it more.

[Lowkey]

I enjoy Rand quite a bit. Especially his policy on the EPA.

[Uriah]

This is a good question that we all need to prepare for, especially if anyone's going to be involved in the GOP. Most rank and file Republicans think Ron Paul would have gutted the military and would be too reluctant to go to war. There's no point arguing those assumptions with them. Their main concern is "safety". We have to demonstrate that a non-interventionist policy makes us "safer", not weaker.

I'll have to think about it more.

I mentioned this in another thread. Funny thing happened. One of our National Delegates from Iowa got in a verbal argument with our GOP county co-chair. It was about what the Paul delegates were doing at the convention. Basically he(the co-chair) thought we were trying to do crazy things blah blah blah. Then somehow the argument got shifted to Rand Paul. This is what is interesting. Our delegate said that Rand and Ron are virtually the same philosophically and on policy. The co-chair adamantly disagreed and basically said they are worlds apart. He seemed to have a favorable impression of Rand but not Ron.

[fisharmor]

I'm an AnCap and have no problem supporting Rand, so I don't know what people are talking about. :confused:
Well for the record, it was ancap haters who dragged ancap into the discussion.

I think it's interesting that I brought up that some of us think he's a douche, and as soon as someone agreed with me, he gets permabanned.
Not really sure how you guys can be sure who thinks what or what the numbers are if this is the reaction we can expect from here on out.

[Carlybee]

CajunCocoa got banned? For voicing an opinion? Wow...nice liberty position. I guess liberty is a relative term on this forum. Just admit some of you use the term to try and differentiate yourselves from the rank and file but ultimately you just want to become the rank and file...which puts you at the same level of douchebaggery we thought we were trying to change. Ban me too..I no longer give a damn but I guarantee you I am done with so called conservative libertarians or libertarian republicans...its just another name for playing the same old stupid game. Time to start the Resistance...because this place is now is the land of intolerance...congratulations! Some of us will not be assimilated.

[Rocco]

Then leave. Rand 2016 is the future of the movement. If you aren't on board, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!


CajunCocoa got banned? For voicing an opinion? Wow...nice liberty position. I guess liberty is a relative term on this forum. Just admit some of you use the term to try and differentiate yourselves from the rank and file but ultimately you just want to become the rank and file...which puts you at the same level of douchebaggery we thought we were trying to change. Ban me too..I no longer give a damn but I guarantee you I am done with so called conservative libertarians or libertarian republicans...its just another name for playing the same old stupid game. Time to start the Resistance...because this place is now is the land of intolerance...congratulations! Some of us will not be assimilated.

[Reece]

Then leave. Rand 2016 is the future of the movement. If you aren't on board, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

While I am supporting Rand, I don't think it should be a requirement to do so. This is the "Ron Paul Forums," not the "Rand Paul Forums." People having different opinions on who the liberty candidates are is fine.

[LibertyEagle]

While I am supporting Rand, I don't think it should be a requirement to do so. This is the "Ron Paul Forums," not the "Rand Paul Forums." People having different opinions on who the liberty candidates are is fine.

It's actually both. www.randpaulforums.com

It doesn't matter if people support Rand or not, but they most certainly don't need to go all over the place spewing their hatred of him.

[Reece]

It's actually both. www.randpaulforums.com

It doesn't matter if people support Rand or not, but they most certainly don't need to go all over the place spewing their hatred of him.

Ah, sorry, I didn't notice we were in this forum (I came from the front page). And I agree with the rest of your post (especially in the Rand Paul Forum).

[anaconda]

A significant percentage of the liberty movement thinks Rand is a douche.


I think he is amazing. Just look at his record in the senate.



Rand has gone essentially rogue in the Senate and does things no other Senator would dream of. He is just as likely to piss off John McCain as Barbara Boxer. Many times he acts alone to object to bills set to pass under suspension, so that there is debate and roll calls. He filibusters, tacks on crazy amendments to stall statist legislation and induce debate, excoriates statist agency people in Senate hearings, rails against foreign aid, the patriot act, the TSA, overreach by the EPA, aggression without a congressional declaration of war, writes anti-state books, proposes budgets that balance in 3 years, votes against debt ceiling increases, warrantless searches and wiretaps, quotes novels and famous philosophers, makes frequent references to specific sections of the constitution, has said ALL regulations should sunset regularly and then have to be justified in order to be reinstated, has said on national T.V. that he feels he should return his salary to the taxpayers since the Senate does so little work and with no debate, he introduces bills for no reason other than to underscore hypocrisy, and last but not least, he claims to eat lots of sushi. He is just one guy and can't do it all alone. But looking at him work, you almost wouldn't know it. He has evolved into a top notch speaker, thinks well on his feet, and can dumb down the message for the lower information voter when necessary.

Last edited by anaconda; 11-07-2012 at 02:20 AM.

[Galileo Galilei]

Rand has gone essentially rogue in the Senate and does things no other Senator would dream of. He is just as likely to piss off John McCain as Barbara Boxer. Many times he acts alone to object to bills set to pass under suspension, so that there is debate and roll calls. He filibusters, tacks on crazy amendments to stall statist legislation and induce debate, excoriates statist agency people in Senate hearings, rails against foreign aid, the patriot act, the TSA, overreach by the EPA, aggression without a congressional declaration of war, writes anti-state books, proposes budgets that balance in 3 years, votes against debt ceiling increases, warrantless searches and wiretaps, quotes novels and famous philosophers, makes frequent references to specific sections of the constitution, has said ALL regulations should sunset regularly and then have to be justified in order to be reinstated, has said on national T.V. that he feels he should return his salary to the taxpayers since the Senate does so little work and with no debate, he introduces bills for no reason other than to underscore hypocrisy, and last but not least, he claims to eat lots of sushi. He is just one guy and can't do it all alone. But looking at him work, you almost wouldn't know it. He has evolved into a top notch speaker, thinks well on his feet, and can dumb down the message for the lower information voter when necessary.



That's a great summary of how great Rand is. Frankly, I find this even more impressive than Ron Paul's voting record as Rand is brand new in the more higher profile senate.

[Sola_Fide]

dbl

[Sola_Fide]

CajunCocoa got banned? For voicing an opinion? Wow...nice liberty position. I guess liberty is a relative term on this forum. Just admit some of you use the term to try and differentiate yourselves from the rank and file but ultimately you just want to become the rank and file...which puts you at the same level of douchebaggery we thought we were trying to change. Ban me too..I no longer give a damn but I guarantee you I am done with so called conservative libertarians or libertarian republicans...its just another name for playing the same old stupid game. Time to start the Resistance...because this place is now is the land of intolerance...congratulations! Some of us will not be assimilated.

I'm with you. Some things in this world will just never get resolved with politics at all. Political action is not the solution for everything. Even though I support Rand for president, I don't have confidence in a political solution to... anything, really.

We are living in the death throes of these United States. We are out of political solutions.

Some good things that can come from promoting Rand for president are:

1. Ron will be in the spotlight and center of national politics for 4 more years
2. More people will get exposed to the ideas of liberty
3. More Ron Paul Republicans can run for office and be accepted as "mainstream"
4. As this country sinks deeper, the answer as to why it is sinking will be made known in a Rand campaign

There is a lot more I'm missing. But the point is, I don't look to Rand (or Ron for that matter) as a Saviors. There is only one Savior, and both Ron and Rand must look to Him for salvation. Politics does not bring salvation. Politicians do not bring salvation. Political action does not bring salvation. This is the religious aspect of statism that is one of the oldest forms of idolatry. Statism is a false religion and politicians are false saviors.

[Carlybee]

Yes I'm aware this is Rands section...I was referring to the forum as a whole and its easy to see where its headed. I don't dislike Rand at all and wish him the best but sucking up to the very same people who threw his dad under the bus will never sit well with me. The Tea Party is not the liberty faction..they are the fiscal conservative faction who mostly have few issues with warmongering and other libertarian concerns. Call me when you learn the true meaning of liberty and stop hijacking the term. Sayonara.

[Shane Harris]

Whatever, everyone. I know for a fact that other posters here thin he's a douche, ad I know for a fact that many of the posters who were purged or voluntarily left also think he's a douche.
If you think he can win without our support, good on ya. I'm sure intentionally alienating a voting block can't possibly have negative consequences.

I also like how you guys just can't stop taking digs at anarchists. When you're the ones constantly bringing it up, you do realize it only promotes the idea, right?

Im ancap and I support Rand. And the people who demand that his rhetoric be the same as Ron's and that he isn't allowed to talk to anyone or make friends with the GOP are advocating intentionally alienating the GOP voting block, which couldn't possibly have negative consequences right? He's the most libertarian Senator we've had since Robert Taft and although I don't believe in the State or in the democratic process as the single answer to our problems, I fully support Rand and I fully support using the political process to educate people and if we can win races and roll back the state by any margin then I support that too. I wouldn't try to undermine my closest friends in government just because they aren't with me 100%.

[Kregisen]

CajunCocoa got banned? For voicing an opinion? Wow...nice liberty position.


Actually, private property rights is the basis of all rights....so yes, exercising your property rights effectively is indeed a nice liberty position. The opposite would be to force a forum owner to keep someone on the threads who seems to get in fights a lot.



Anyway, love him or hate him, Rand is the future of the GOP, and I know the vast majority of us will get behind him. If you're too pure politically to support him because he endorsed Mitt or has had one or 2 bad votes in his career, then go back to the libertarian party (or not vote at all...that seems to be what a lot of libertarians do) and spend the next 80 years moving from 1% presidential candidates to 3% presidential candidates.

This isn't an insult to the LP, as I vote for more LP candidates than any other party every election, but it's a simple reminder that the only way to institute change in the near future is through the Republican party. This is just fact - and Rand Paul will be the new tool we will use to not only get a great shot at president, but also sweeping the Senate and Congress with liberty candidates as once Rand gets super popular, all of his endorsements will bring about huge wins.

I'm excited for the next 4 years.

[BuddyRey]

I'd vote for Rand if it came down to a race between him and some horrible Democrat, but he's still far from the best candidate the liberty movement has. You guys are letting your impatience with the slow march of our revolution make you settle for second best. Aiming high and running principled libertarian candidates *is* paying off for us, but it's a long-game strategy; we just have to persevere and not forget the gains we've made.

[redickd]

I will support Rand (or Ron !) if he announces for US Pres-2016. Until then see Redick for Pres-2016 at www.forward-usa.org, Comments? Best, Dave

[fisharmor]

CajunCocoa got banned? For voicing an opinion?
Unless someone wants to come correct the record, then this is what we're left with.

War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Everyone loves Rand.

[TheTexan]

I will as soon as you don't speak on these boards at all. I see you have stepped up your negativity again. You really need to be scrubbed...you are a positive energy vampire.


bye then

Yes, let's ban someone for presenting an opposing opinion in a thread titled "So are we going Rand Paul 2016?"

Let's make a thread asking people to present both sides of the issue, and then let the same 2-3 people who do this same shit in every thread dictate that NOTHING negative be said about Rand or his possibilities in 2016 WHATSOEVER.

Cajuncocoa wasn't even saying anything negative about Rand himself... just doesn't think the Republican party will be accepting of him. I like Rand and I wish him the best for 2016, but I happen to agree with that, are you going to ban me too for saying that? What the fuck are the mods thinking here?

[Carlybee]

I don't think they will accept him either ultimately...I think they will do to him what they did to his dad. He may differ somewhat on foreign policy than his dad but he is hardly full out warmonger...the Republicans are owned by the MIC...many probably have investments in War Inc. Does anyone really think they are going to let someone mess with their profiteering? Oh well...head in sand time.

Oh and thanks for all the neg reps. LOL

[CaptLouAlbano]

I don't think they will accept him either ultimately...I think they will do to him what they did to his dad. He may differ somewhat on foreign policy than his dad but he is hardly full out warmonger...the Republicans are owned by the MIC...many probably have investments in War Inc. Does anyone really think they are going to let someone mess with their profiteering? Oh well...head in sand time.

"We" are becoming "they". All it takes is for libertarian minded people to run for seats on their county committee. We need to run, so that we have influence and/or control of the state parties. If we do not, then we should expect similar results to 2012.

There is a logical, systematic means to give Rand the support on the ground he needs to prevail. But it requires people to get out into their local communities and have multiple interactions with registered GOP voters from a position of prominence and authority. Your county committee is the most direct means for that which is needed.

Committeemen (or women) are responsible for direct contact with the voters in their precinct. Between now and the 2016 primaries, a committeeman can have numerous contacts with each and every registered Republican in their precinct. Relationships are built and respect is gained. When the nomination race begins, committeemen can use that influence that has been built over the years to GOTV for Rand.

[Carlybee]

"We" are becoming "they". All it takes is for libertarian minded people to run for seats on their county committee. We need to run, so that we have influence and/or control of the state parties. If we do not, then we should expect similar results to 2012.

Sure Cap'n. All those antics at the primaries and convention never happened. And none of the liberty candidates supported financially by members of this site never capitulated and endorsed Romney. I guess the way you become them...is to become them.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Sure Cap'n. All those antics at the primaries and convention never happened.

They did. Because we are not in a majority position. But we can be. Many counties will have elections in 2013 for committee seats. The rest will be in 2014. The more liberty minded people that run for committee, the greater our influence will be.

But if all folks do is sit back and do nothing, then the results will be the same.

[Carlybee]

They did. Because we are not in a majority position. But we can be. Many counties will have elections in 2013 for committee seats. The rest will be in 2014. The more liberty minded people that run for committee, the greater our influence will be.

But if all folks do is sit back and do nothing, then the results will be the same.

Out of curiosity...what is your ideology criteria for a liberty candidate?

[CaptLouAlbano]

Out of curiosity...what is your ideology criteria for a liberty candidate?

I am a traditional conservative, sometimes referred to as the "Old Right". I look for people who most closely align with my positions on issues, knowing that no one is going to be perfect. My "litmus test" if I have one would be that a person needs to hold to a belief that a limited government is the best government to have, and that those principles are outlined in the US and state constitutions.

[Carlybee]

I am a traditional conservative, sometimes referred to as the "Old Right". I look for people who most closely align with my positions on issues, knowing that no one is going to be perfect. My "litmus test" if I have one would be that a person needs to hold to a belief that a limited government is the best government to have, and that those principles are outlined in the US and state constitutions.

I see, thank you.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I see, thank you.

And yourself?

[Carlybee]

And yourself?



I'm a libertarian...I believe true liberty involves more than just fiscal restraint and small government. Therefore my twain is not likely to meet with those who call for only limited liberty and/ or those who are willing to compromise some principle for the "greater good" or those who think the lesser of two evils is not still evil or those who are willing to put security before civil liberty...I could go on but it's rather pointless.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I'm a libertarian...I believe true liberty involves more than just fiscal restraint and small government. Therefore my twain is not likely to meet with those who call for only limited liberty and/ or those who are willing to compromise some principle for the "greater good" or those who think the lesser of two evils is not still evil or those who are willing to put security before civil liberty...I could go on but it's rather pointless.

I respect that position. I differ in that I am a realist, in the sense that I realize that not all of the positions that I hold to may have widespread support at the present time. For example, I was anti-fed before it was cool to be anti-fed. It has always been a major issue for me, dating all the way back to the 1960's. But if I dug my heels in and refused to vote for someone who wasn't anti-fed, I would have never found a candidate to my liking for the large majority of my life. Now that the issue is prominent, and the national debate has moved in my direction, I can be more strident in that position and use it as a litmus test of sorts.

And keep in mind that when I speak of support of a candidate it far surpasses my personal vote. My vote is just one vote and does not sway things one way or another. But I have been an activist for 50 years and elected into local office or committee for about 20 of those years. My support can garner a candidate hundreds of votes due to the influence that I can have through my work and involvement in both the political and civic community. I am not unique in this, a good activist can influence hundreds of voters to his or her candidate of choice.

[dinosaur]

Does anyone know why Bastiat's the Law was banned? I was just reading this thread and was curious.

[FSP-Rebel]

CajunCocoa got banned? Some of us will not be assimilated.
I've never been a fan of hers but people told her over and over to lay off Rand in his own sub at least. It's almost like some are bending over backwards to dwell on a few past disagreements w/ Rand and drive the debate forward on every occasion. Some are so dead set on hoping Rand does, in fact, become the enemy of the liberty movement out of personal vindication reasons, which is disgusting. And, it has nothing to do with assimilation, you're acting like we're all not from the same ideological camp. There's just a more hip way of approaching the pursuit of future liberty. People don't just flip on the light and automatically become 100% pro-liberty. I'm willing to work with the 70-80%+ as opposed to throwing them to the wolves. If one can only function with a clone of themselves, their success rate will continually be next to 0. Instead of viewing everything in a negative light, try seeing the positives that are happening if you can admit them to yourself.

[fisharmor]

People don't just flip on the light and automatically become 100% pro-liberty.

Hey, now I'm not even a person!

[Carlybee]

I've never been a fan of hers but people told her over and over to lay off Rand in his own sub at least. It's almost like some are bending over backwards to dwell on a few past disagreements w/ Rand and drive the debate forward on every occasion. Some are so dead set on hoping Rand does, in fact, become the enemy of the liberty movement out of personal vindication reasons, which is disgusting. And, it has nothing to do with assimilation, you're acting like we're all not from the same ideological camp. There's just a more hip way of approaching the pursuit of future liberty. People don't just flip on the light and automatically become 100% pro-liberty. I'm willing to work with the 70-80%+ as opposed to throwing them to the wolves. If one can only function with a clone of themselves, their success rate will continually be next to 0. Instead of viewing everything in a negative light, try seeing the positives that are happening if you can admit them to yourself.

She's been a member since 2007....I hardly think a perma ban was warranted over some who get butthurt at the slightest provocation. If some of you can't handle debate just because it happens to be in Rand's forum, good luck with trying to convince people to get more involved. There is a most divisive "If you aren't with us you're against us" vibe on this board and in particular with regard to anything involving Rand. Yet you want people to think you care about liberty when you can't even show a modicum of respect for differing opinions and treat anyone voicing one like a troll.

[Occam's Banana]

She's been a member since 2007....I hardly think a perma ban was warranted over some who get butthurt at the slightest provocation. If some of you can't handle debate just because it happens to be in Rand's forum, good luck with trying to convince people to get more involved. There is a most divisive "If you aren't with us you're against us" vibe on this board and in particular with regard to anything involving Rand. Yet you want people to think you care about liberty when you can't even show a modicum of respect for differing opinions and treat anyone voicing one like a troll.

So how does it help by suggesting that other forum members (especially ones like FSP-R) merely "want people to think [they] care about liberty" - thereby insinuating that they *don't* really care about liberty. With all due respect, that's not debating. That's not showing a modicum of respect for differing opinions. That's passive-aggressive provocation.

Some of those you disagree with are guilty of *exactly* the same thing, to be sure. So be the bigger person. Don't descend to their level. You'll show them up for the immature boors that they are, and your words will carry greater weight. But instead, you're just fanning the flames. Is there some point at which you expect that to start working?

[Uriah]

Yes I'm aware this is Rands section...I was referring to the forum as a whole and its easy to see where its headed. I don't dislike Rand at all and wish him the best but sucking up to the very same people who threw his dad under the bus will never sit well with me. The Tea Party is not the liberty faction..they are the fiscal conservative faction who mostly have few issues with warmongering and other libertarian concerns. Call me when you learn the true meaning of liberty and stop hijacking the term. Sayonara.

When has Rand sucked up to anybody? He has made political decisions so as to not make himself an outcast. That is just smart politics. I don't like it any more than the next guy or gal. But if we can't see what he did and truly why he did it then this in fighting will keep pushing some people out. At this moment in history we need to stand together in the cause of liberty. We WILL NOT see eye to eye on every issue but if we can't stand together when it truly matters then we and this country are doomed to tyranny and destruction.

Just for those of you that still don't know, Rand endorsed Romney because he promised he would endorse the nominee. He has been a man of his word. At the time of his endorsement of Romney, Ron had effectively lost the nomination. In Rand's endorsement he said his first choice has always been his father. Rand never threw his father under the proverbial 'bus'. Ron kept campaigning for us and for our voices to be heard. Of course, our voice was crushed at the national convention. No body knew Romney & friends would be as wretched as they were. None of this means Rand is a traitor or neo-con or doesn't advocate liberty and defend the constitution.

This in fighting needs to stop. It is not productive. I am working for the freedom of all. I hope you are too.

[CaptLouAlbano]

When has Rand sucked up to anybody? He has made political decisions so as to not make himself an outcast. That is just smart politics.

This is a key to his future success. If Rand is labeled as an outsider he will be stuck in meaningless committees like Indian Affairs (no offence to the Indians among us) or the Joint Committee on the Library. He will never make any allies, because people will avoid him like the plague.

Rand is far too smart for that though - it's politics, and he is playing the game of politics.

[PatriotOne]

Does anyone know why Bastiat's the Law was banned? I was just reading this thread and was curious.

Undeclared "War on Brains"

http://i50.tinypic.com/34ew6ts.png

[cstarace]

Then leave. Rand 2016 is the future of the movement. If you aren't on board, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!
Oh, really? He's the future of the movement? According to whom, you? Get off your high horse.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Oh, really? He's the future of the movement? According to whom, you? Get off your high horse.

I have close ties with many conservative and libertarian activists in my section of the state, roughly about 100 people. We meet often in large and small groups to discuss politics and strategy for local, state and federal election. Many of these folks are elected to committee seats. These are the folks that got Tom Davis elected to State Senate by defeating a incumbent GOP State Senator in the primary. These same folks are eagerly anticipating Davis' challenge of Graham in 2014. This is the liberty movement that exists outside of web forums and blogs - I'd venture to guess most of them do not even know this site exists. We are all very enthusiastic about a Rand 2016 presidential bid.

[fisharmor]

Rand endorsed Romney because he promised he would endorse the nominee. He has been a man of his word.

Romney was not the nominee when Rand endorsed him.

[CaptLouAlbano]

Romney was not the nominee when Rand endorsed him.

Romney had secured enough bound delegates at that point to put him over the top.

[Uriah]

I have close ties with many conservative and libertarian activists in my section of the state, roughly about 100 people. We meet often in large and small groups to discuss politics and strategy for local, state and federal election. Many of these folks are elected to committee seats. These are the folks that got Tom Davis elected to State Senate by defeating a incumbent GOP State Senator in the primary. These same folks are eagerly anticipating Davis' challenge of Graham in 2014. This is the liberty movement that exists outside of web forums and blogs - I'd venture to guess most of them do not even know this site exists. We are all very enthusiastic about a Rand 2016 presidential bid.

Good to hear.

[Uriah]

Romney had secured enough bound delegates at that point to put him over the top.

This.

[Kregisen]

You guys can fight all you want.....truth is, Rand Paul will be the liberty candidate in 2016. Will there be people who object and want someone else? Sure, just like all the Gary Johnson people who have been in here the past couple years saying we should get behind him instead of Ron Paul. What happened to them? They were ignored and they left.

Nobody is forcing anyone here to support Rand, but unless hell freezes over, he will likely be the new liberty candidate, and trying to get people in here to support anyone else over Rand once the primaries start up will be hurting the movement - not helping it. So by all means, suggest other people for the movement to get behind, but nobody even comes close to the name recognition and foot in the door that Rand has, and nobody else has been the only vote in the entire senate that Rand has been on some of these key issues. This is why he's our man, and this is why people in here will not think of you too fondly if you keep trying to attack him instead of uniting behind him.

[Carlybee]

Then leave. Rand 2016 is the future of the movement. If you aren't on board, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out!

No one is saying Rand isn't the future of the movement for SOME people on this board. Some have moved on to the Libertarian party and some are just disgusted in general. That being said, when they take the RON PAUL off the masthead and replace it with RAND PAUL, then you can say that he is officially the future of the movement on THIS board (not just the Rand forum) but until that time people have a choice and running people off who disagree is more than likely going to alienate supporters rather than gain them.


Want to gain supporters for Rand? Stop acting like a bunch of pussies everytime someone asks a question or makes a statement that is contrary to what you think it should be. Because that what a lot of you sound like right now. Grow a set.

[Dystopian]

I'm supporting the candidate who is the most anti-war, pro-free market, and pro-civil liberties. If Rand Paul starts sounding and voting like his father, then I will wholeheartedly support him.

[Uriah]

I'm supporting the candidate who is the most anti-war, pro-free market, and pro-civil liberties. If Rand Paul starts sounding and voting like his father, then I will wholeheartedly support him.

Welcome to the forums!

Don't expect Rand to sound exactly like his father. He is on a more political path. His votes are looking good so far. I'm with you though. If he waivers in the defense of liberty I will question my support. Thus far, his is the best option for president in my view.

[Brett85]

I'm supporting the candidate who is the most anti-war, pro-free market, and pro-civil liberties. If Rand Paul starts sounding and voting like his father, then I will wholeheartedly support him.

Rand has voted like his father on all but one or two votes.

[Dogsoldier]

I would vote for rand so far but I still think 2016 is too soon.He just got in.Most people don't know him.

[Brett85]

I would vote for rand so far but I still think 2016 is too soon.He just got in.Most people don't know him.

Obama got in the Senate in 2004 and won the Presidency in 2008. Rand will have more experience than Obama did if Rand decides to run in 2016.

[supermario21]

What we don't need is Gary Johnson to run again. He should run for NM Senate in 2014.

[Uriah]

What we don't need is Gary Johnson to run again. He should run for NM Senate in 2014.

I wholeheartedly concur. I would support him if he ran for NM Senate. He should run as a Republican though.

[CaptLouAlbano]

I wholeheartedly concur. I would support him if he ran for NM Senate. He should run as a Republican though.

He might have trouble getting committee support. Jumping to the LP does not sit well with committee persons, even ones who might agree with him ideologically

[LibertyEagle]

I have close ties with many conservative and libertarian activists in my section of the state, roughly about 100 people. We meet often in large and small groups to discuss politics and strategy for local, state and federal election. Many of these folks are elected to committee seats. These are the folks that got Tom Davis elected to State Senate by defeating a incumbent GOP State Senator in the primary. These same folks are eagerly anticipating Davis' challenge of Graham in 2014. This is the liberty movement that exists outside of web forums and blogs - I'd venture to guess most of them do not even know this site exists. We are all very enthusiastic about a Rand 2016 presidential bid.

I thank God for small blessings.

[Uriah]

He might have trouble getting committee support. Jumping to the LP does not sit well with committee persons, even ones who might agree with him ideologically

Very true. In my county committee, if you support someone of another party in anyway you will be removed from your position. If Gary runs for US senate he needs to play makeup with the NM GOP.