Problems with Rand Paul

[WarAnonymous]

I just want to get it all out in the open now, see what peoples problems are and what people think. I was discussing the other day with a Liberal friend who he would pick out of certain GOP candidates and democrat candidates for 2016 (he would of voted republican for Ron Paul only). He blew my mind when he said he would pick Rubio over Paul. I figured the Gay Rights/ProLife was a big concern for him so I asked him what all his problems were.

His Reponse:

Paul was against a bill that would require companies to label their GMO products -
I can see this from both sides, being a big opposer to GMO, but also this required government intervention which I am also against.
Opinions?

Paul supported a bill that would not allow drug companies to manufacture generic brands of medicine -
I am not sure which bill he is referring to?
True/Opinions?

My Problems:
Sanctions on countries kill innocent people, alot of innocent people.

Endorsing Mitt Romney (which I could get over if things pan out and I can get answers on questions)

There are more off top of my head this is it... Opinions/adding to the list would be appreciated.

[Kregisen]

In terms of the GMO issue, as I recently said in another thread:

If so many citizens are concerned about GMO (and yes the number is exponentially growing) then smart employers who want to maximize their profit will start labeling their non-GMO foods "Non-GMO". I don't understand why you have to force them to list it on there. If they don't list it, assume it has GMO. If it doesn't have GMO, trust me, every smart business will put it on there. If the demand for non-GMO food gets large enough, businesses will do all they can to take GMO out and list GMO-free on their food products.


No government regulation needed.....free market.

[WarAnonymous]

In terms of the GMO issue, as I recently said in another thread:

If so many citizens are concerned about GMO (and yes the number is exponentially growing) then smart employers who want to maximize their profit will start labeling their non-GMO foods "Non-GMO". I don't understand why you have to force them to list it on there. If they don't list it, assume it has GMO. If it doesn't have GMO, trust me, every smart business will put it on there. If the demand for non-GMO food gets large enough, businesses will do all they can to take GMO out and list GMO-free on their food products.


No government regulation needed.....free market.

absolutely! I agree.

[dbill27]

To the OP, your liberal friend's voting choice is kind of irrelevant to us. Talk about a single issue voter, when the general election comes and it's a republican like rand hopefully, against a democrat, I doubt those issues are the deciding factors.

[dinosaur]

To the OP, your liberal friend's voting choice is kind of irrelevant to us. Talk about a single issue voter, when the general election comes and it's a republican like rand hopefully, against a democrat, I doubt those issues are the deciding factors.

No kidding, it is pretty irrelevent that the OP's liberal friend is more comfortable with NDAA Rubio than Rand (who is clearly not a warmonger, and who fought against the NDAA, and who fought against the recent round of sanctions).

[MrGoose]

Like what is said above. If more people cared about GMO then businesses would take it out of their products. We see this a lot in Wal-Mart with a lot of their products being organic. Invisible hand always prevails. I personally don't care about GMO, but I'm a poor college student and just ate week old Chinese food.

That's what I would say.

[LibertyEagle]

Wasn't Ron against this too? As I recall, the reasoning was that this legislation at the federal level would trump what was already in place at the state level, not to mention independent rating organizations, and would result in much more lax requirements on what constitutes GMO. Or maybe that was about the federal legislation about organic labeling. But, the logic would be the same, I would think.

[Sola_Fide]

Those aren't good reasons to support Rubio over Rand.

[Muwahid]

The GMO thing is a lot like the civil rights act, it would be cool if businesses didn't discriminate, but government force to stop it, is giving to much power to the government, and less power to the people. The people have the power via the free market to force these changes upon businesses and when you give that power to the government, it becomes dangerous.

It's a philosophy based thing, when you start to compromise your opinion become rather arbitrary and you lose credibility.

[WarAnonymous]

I think alot of you are taking my post wrong. I for one am ready to support Rand, although I do have some issues. I was just trying to bring to the table what people's big problems are because I know alot of people on here are very negative about Rand. I don't care about the GMO issue, but I am interested in the generic drug part but I still am unsure about this. Like I said I do not like sanctions they kill to many innocent people. I am not looking to attack Rand or make this all about GMO's. I was just simply posting some concerns and trying to see what others concerns are.

[Rudeman]

I'm pretty sure Ron and Rand have the same view on GMO's. I'm not sure what your friend is talking about when it comes to generic drugs. I did a quick search on preventing generic drug bills and found S. 3187 which was almost approved unanimously (96-1 Bernie Sanders only nay vote).
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3187
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/us/politics/senate-passes-bipartisan-bill-on-new-medicines.html?_r=0

[Occam's Banana]

Paul was against a bill that would require companies to label their GMO products -
I can see this from both sides, being a big opposer to GMO, but also this required government intervention which I am also against.
Opinions?

Nothing in the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to do any such thing, so I have no problem with this at all.


Paul supported a bill that would not allow drug companies to manufacture generic brands of medicine -
I am not sure which bill he is referring to?
True/Opinions?

Never heard of this. If it is true, it's a black mark against Rand. *IF* it's true.


My Problems:
Sanctions on countries kill innocent people, alot of innocent people.


So far, this is the only black mark against Rand in my book.
And that's actually more of a dark-to-medium grey mark, since Rand took steps to ensure sanctions were not a severe as they otherwise would have been.
And those sanctions haven't killed (and won't kill) anyone. They only had to do with Iran's central bank. That doesn't make it right, but still ...


Endorsing Mitt Romney (which I could get over if things pan out and I can get answers on questions)

This one is completely meaningless. The previous things you mention are exactly the sort of things people ought to take into account when considering whether or not they can, in good conscience, support Rand (or any other politician). People will come to different conclusions, of course, according to their own personal value scales, but at least they'll be basing their decisions on actual, substantive factors.

However, things like endorsements, alliances, rhetoric & public statements, etc. should simply be ignored. The only things that matter in the end are how Rand votes, what legislation he introduces or co-sponsors, and what he actually does in the Senate. Everything else is just irrelevant fluff.

[WarAnonymous]

Nothing in the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to do any such thing, so I have no problem with this at all.



Never heard of this. If it is true, it's a black mark against Rand. *IF* it's true.



So far, this is the only black mark against Rand in my book.
And that's actually more of a dark-to-medium grey mark, since Rand took steps to ensure sanctions were not a severe as they otherwise would have been.
And those sanctions haven't killed (and won't kill) anyone. They only had to do with Iran's central bank. That doesn't make it right, but still ...



This one is completely meaningless. The previous things you mention are exactly the sort of things people ought to take into account when considering whether or not they can, in good conscience, support Rand (or any other politician). People will come to different conclusions, of course, according to their own personal value scales, but at least they'll be basing their decisions on actual, substantive factors.

However, things like endorsements, alliances, rhetoric & public statements, etc. should simply be ignored. The only things that matter in the end are how Rand votes, what legislation he introduces or co-sponsors, and what he actually does in the Senate. Everything else is just irrelevant fluff.

That's the post I was looking for... I wanted argue back on the drug thing but didn't have any proof and I couldn't find it. The GMO thing is irrelevent to me. Like I said I don't agree with the sanctions but if this is the only thing that's negative I can definately get in line. The endorsement really wouldnt cause me to stay away, I guess it just made me sour. I noticed alot of people on here Anti Rand and I just wanted reasons. I listed what I heard, what my things were, and was just trying to get a good idea. I can argue about any Ron Paul point and if Rand jumps in I want to be able to do the same. That was my only goal, thank you for the good answer.

[carclinic]

In terms of the GMO issue, as I recently said in another thread:

If so many citizens are concerned about GMO (and yes the number is exponentially growing) then smart employers who want to maximize their profit will start labeling their non-GMO foods "Non-GMO". I don't understand why you have to force them to list it on there. If they don't list it, assume it has GMO. If it doesn't have GMO, trust me, every smart business will put it on there. If the demand for non-GMO food gets large enough, businesses will do all they can to take GMO out and list GMO-free on their food products.


No government regulation needed.....free market.
So, unless a package says "no radioactive elements," I should assume it's radioactive...

[kathy88]

To the OP, your liberal friend's voting choice is kind of irrelevant to us. Talk about a single issue voter, when the general election comes and it's a republican like rand hopefully, against a democrat, I doubt those issues are the deciding factors.

That's the kind of attitude that alienates us from them. It sounds like this single issue liberal friend is pretty aware politically. He knew how Rand voted, name 10 of your neighbors who can say the same. He's open to discussion. These are the people we NEED. Get them the information that it will take to help them understand the why. I'll vote over and over for someone who's beliefs may differ from mine if they intend to vote constitutionally.

[July]

Is this the thing about generic drugs you were talking about?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/229369-senate-defeats-amendment-meant-to-speed-up-access-to-generic-drugs

This is a philosophical difference between libertarians and progressives...we might both agree GMOs are nasty, and that there should be more competition in the marketplace, etc... But using government coerision to force market regulation isn't a good solution, and just tends grow the regulatory agencies--the dangers of which Rand has written a whole book about.

Anyway, this is one area where I think Rand makes this point a little more obvious than Ron did, so he gets a stronger reaction from liberals.

[Okie RP fan]

Liberals are like little whiny, immature school children. They want EVERYTHING and want YOU to pay for it. And I've tried to discuss NDAA with many of them (among a few other issues) and all they care about is birth control and taking down the old, white, racist GOP...

Talk about some lost souls...

My point is, good luck genuinely changing their mind with anything. Their facts are their own.

[AuH20]

Liberals are like little whiny, immature school children. They want EVERYTHING and want YOU to pay for it. And I've tried to discuss NDAA with many of them (among a few other issues) and all they care about is birth control and taking down the old, white, racist GOP...

Talk about some lost souls...

My point is, good luck genuinely changing their mind with anything. Their facts are their own.

Prisoners of their own self-reinforced demons. I've written them off a long time ago. Granted, there are some liberals who I respect like Naomi Wolf, Glenn Greenwald and Ron Wyden. But the average, on-the-street prog is often so detached from reality and the human condition. That's exactly the prime reason they are liberals. Instead of trying to better themselves and prepare themselves for the rigors of the harsh world, they're attempting to remove the external stimuli that define who human beings are, which is ulitmately an entire detriment to us all. This particular road leads to tyranny and ruin.

[ClydeCoulter]

I just want to get it all out in the open now, see what peoples problems are and what people think. I was discussing the other day with a Liberal friend who he would pick out of certain GOP candidates and democrat candidates for 2016 (he would of voted republican for Ron Paul only). He blew my mind when he said he would pick Rubio over Paul. I figured the Gay Rights/ProLife was a big concern for him so I asked him what all his problems were.

His Reponse:

Paul was against a bill that would require companies to label their GMO products -
I can see this from both sides, being a big opposer to GMO, but also this required government intervention which I am also against.
Opinions?

Paul supported a bill that would not allow drug companies to manufacture generic brands of medicine -
I am not sure which bill he is referring to?
True/Opinions?

My Problems:
Sanctions on countries kill innocent people, alot of innocent people.

Endorsing Mitt Romney (which I could get over if things pan out and I can get answers on questions)

There are more off top of my head this is it... Opinions/adding to the list would be appreciated.

That's a worthwhile endevor, we should not put all Dems in the same "can't save them" category. What's with grouping them? Work with the individual.

+rep OP, keep working to get the message out :)

edit: And to keep gaining understanding for yourself.

[nobody's_hero]

I think I will support Rand in 2016, but I still find difficulty getting others to take him seriously after some of the partisan rhetoric he's been speaking.

Ron Paul could get support from the left, the right, and even people who had never voted a day in their lives, because Ron Paul was an 'equal opportunity critic' who could lay the smack down on misbehavin' republicans as quickly as he could the democrats. Everyone expects republicans to attack democrats, and democrats to attack republicans, but when you have a republican who can attack republicans or a democrat who can attack democrats, it's much more unique and actually builds credibility with undecided voters. Rand Paul needs to keep his distance a bit from the GOP party-line talk, and yet at the same time, be able to build his reputation within the party. No easy task, but just as Reagan couldn't win the GOP nomination without the help of converted democrats, I think Rand Paul will not be able to, either.

[trey4sports]

I think I will support Rand in 2016, but I still find difficulty getting others to take him seriously after some of the partisan rhetoric he's been speaking.

Ron Paul could get support from the left, the right, and even people who had never voted a day in their lives, because Ron Paul was an 'equal opportunity critic' who could lay the smack down on misbehavin' republicans as quickly as he could the democrats. Everyone expects republicans to attack democrats, and democrats to attack republicans, but when you have a republican who can attack republicans or a democrat who can attack democrats, it's much more unique and actually builds credibility with undecided voters. Rand Paul needs to keep his distance a bit from the GOP party-line talk, and yet at the same time, be able to build his reputation within the party. No easy task, but just as Reagan couldn't win the GOP nomination without the help of converted democrats, I think Rand Paul will not be able to, either.

Yes but at the end of the day Ron's coalition simply wasn't big enough. Not even close. Lets hope rand can do better.

[fisharmor]

My biggest problem with him is that he has single-handedly splintered the liberty movement.

The only thing he had to do to move this group forward was be exactly like his dad.
He chose to embrace the old ways of doing things. The ways that many of us are completely jaded on now.

Ron Paul is a phenomenon.
Rand Paul is a politician.

[RonZeplin]

single-handedly splintered the liberty movement.

He chose to embrace the old ways of doing things. The ways that many of us are completely jaded on now.
With his sanctions on Iran, he seems like the traditional neocon. Expect him to sing a duet with Lindsey Graham... bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.

[specsaregood]

My biggest problem with him is that he has single-handedly splintered the liberty movement.


Then there never was a "liberty movement". Rand's already done more in the Senate to give the liberty swarm a voice in that body than has been done in my lifetime. Stop being silly.

[FrankRep]

Rand Paul Was Right to Vote Against Mandatory GMO Labeling
http://www.dailypaul.com/241717/rand-paul-was-right-to-vote-against-mandatory-gmo-labeling

[FrankRep]

The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNlfg9F-BhY)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNlfg9F-BhY


Libertarians should be opposed to government mandates forcing food companies to label genetically modified foods. We should support the free market and getting the government out of the food industry. Let's not give more power to the FDA. Many companies already voluntarily label food containing no genetically modified ingredients.

"The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to 'capture,' where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of 'modified' to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone"- Ron Paul.

[Feeding the Abscess]

So far, this is the only black mark against Rand in my book.
And that's actually more of a dark-to-medium grey mark, since Rand took steps to ensure sanctions were not a severe as they otherwise would have been.
And those sanctions haven't killed (and won't kill) anyone. They only had to do with Iran's central bank. That doesn't make it right, but still ...

I've gone over this with Collins multiple times. Those sanctions were not strictly dealing with Iran's central bank (as if that means anything - how do you sanction only one thing in a global economy without also sanctioning everything else that does business with it, including the citizens of Iran?). They also dealt with any country or financial institution doing dealings with Iran's central bank.

http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2011/11/04/iran-sanctions-act-definite-step-toward-war/

I'll dig around for a source in support of the sanctions, if necessary, as well.

EDIT: I'll just post it here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/senate-passes-iran-sanctions-100-0-obama-objects-really/2011/12/02/gIQA7yELKO_blog.html

Those sanctions were very similar to the ones placed on Iraq in the 90s. Being glib about Rand's support for those is a terrible move and an injustice to non-interventionism.

[fisharmor]

Then there never was a "liberty movement". Rand's already done more in the Senate to give the liberty swarm a voice in that body than has been done in my lifetime. Stop being silly.

Well, some people in the liberty movement are OK with that voice in the Senate saying "Vote for Mitt Romney".
Other people in the liberty movement are decidedly not OK with that voice saying that.
My point is, it wasn't an issue before he did it. There was previously no split. Now there is.
Go Rand.

[specsaregood]

Well, some people in the liberty movement are OK with that voice in the Senate saying "Vote for Mitt Romney".
Other people in the liberty movement are decidedly not OK with that voice saying that.
My point is, it wasn't an issue before he did it. There was previously no split. Now there is.
Go Rand.

See thats not Rand's fault, that is the people in the liberty movement's fault. If they can't work together just because of Rand's endorsement, then that is pretty darn petty and they were never united in the first place. But hey, I operate under the belief that only I am responsible for my own actions, to each their own.

[carclinic]

Yes but at the end of the day Ron's coalition simply wasn't big enough. Not even close. Lets hope rand can do better.
Rand smacked down Romney on foreign policy weeks before the election.

It's time to separate the libertarians from losertarians that just want to be in the minority so they feel special. Rand is the best chance to get a libertarian in the whitehouse in our lifetimes. If we cannot get it done in the next 8 years, it will be at least 2 generations away before the culture can change enough for us to get another crack at it.

[fisharmor]

If there's one thing Ron taught me, that is still unfolding, it's that if you stick to your principles and take the long view, things will work out.
The man sat languishing in the house for almost 30 years before anyone took notice of anything he said. But we did take notice.
And when we did, we noticed that the reason we got to where we are now is because those of us who would ordinarily stand on principle were browbeaten into compromise.
Vote for the lesser evil, or you get the greater evil.

And Rmoney lost, and lost hard, because enough of us woke up and refused to play that game anymore.
Now we have the GOP hostage. Either they start listening to us, or they never win again.

The problem is that this Pandora's box has already been opened. And this tactic will work on other people as well.

If you want to run a winning liberty candidate, then you will have to take some other people's opinions into consideration.
Just as we all hold the GOP hostage, so we hold you hostage as well.
This would hold true if we only made up 10% of the movement.

Last night I reviewed a FB post from Ron Paul 2012 asking if Rand should run in 2016.
If the replies there are any indicator at all, we do not make up only 10%.

Go ahead and get behind him. I'm not stopping you. Do it in the name of unity.
Just realize that whereas the unity his father creates is based on philosophy, the unity the son creates is based on politics. Dirty, dirty politics.
And realize that some of us aren't going along with that.

[compromise]

I just want to get it all out in the open now, see what peoples problems are and what people think. I was discussing the other day with a Liberal friend who he would pick out of certain GOP candidates and democrat candidates for 2016 (he would of voted republican for Ron Paul only). He blew my mind when he said he would pick Rubio over Paul. I figured the Gay Rights/ProLife was a big concern for him so I asked him what all his problems were.

His Reponse:

Paul was against a bill that would require companies to label their GMO products -
I can see this from both sides, being a big opposer to GMO, but also this required government intervention which I am also against.
Opinions?

Paul supported a bill that would not allow drug companies to manufacture generic brands of medicine -
I am not sure which bill he is referring to?
True/Opinions?

My Problems:
Sanctions on countries kill innocent people, alot of innocent people.

Endorsing Mitt Romney (which I could get over if things pan out and I can get answers on questions)

There are more off top of my head this is it... Opinions/adding to the list would be appreciated.

I don't agree with your friend on abortion or GMO labeling, but I'm not sure why he chose Rubio...
Gay rights/Pro Life - Rubio neither supports gay rights nor is pro choice
GMO Labeling - Rubio doesn't support this
Sanctions - Rubio voted for even more sanctions and is one of the leading advocates for preemptive war, not only in Iran but everywhere from Libya to Georgia
Romney - Rubio was one of the first backers of Romney

The only possible reasoning for your friend's response is that he is voting based purely on race. He will blindly support Rubio because he's a Latino to avoid being a "racist", just like many of those who support Obama.

[Galileo Galilei]

I just want to get it all out in the open now, see what peoples problems are and what people think. I was discussing the other day with a Liberal friend who he would pick out of certain GOP candidates and democrat candidates for 2016 (he would of voted republican for Ron Paul only). He blew my mind when he said he would pick Rubio over Paul. I figured the Gay Rights/ProLife was a big concern for him so I asked him what all his problems were.

His Reponse:

Paul was against a bill that would require companies to label their GMO products -
I can see this from both sides, being a big opposer to GMO, but also this required government intervention which I am also against.
Opinions?

Paul supported a bill that would not allow drug companies to manufacture generic brands of medicine -
I am not sure which bill he is referring to?
True/Opinions?

My Problems:
Sanctions on countries kill innocent people, alot of innocent people.

Endorsing Mitt Romney (which I could get over if things pan out and I can get answers on questions)

There are more off top of my head this is it... Opinions/adding to the list would be appreciated.

Rand Paul never voted for sanctions.

[FindLiberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EfuiYpr840&feature=player_embedded

[tsai3904]

Just realize that whereas the unity his father creates is based on philosophy, the unity the son creates is based on politics. Dirty, dirty politics.
And realize that some of us aren't going along with that.

Do you think Ron never played politics? He had an agreement to back all incumbents in Texas. He endorsed Don Young of Alaska and signed onto a letter asking Kay Bailey Hutchison to not retire. You think Ron did all those things based on principle?

[WarAnonymous]

That's a worthwhile endevor, we should not put all Dems in the same "can't save them" category. What's with grouping them? Work with the individual.

+rep OP, keep working to get the message out :)

edit: And to keep gaining understanding for yourself.

Thanks Clyde. I thought the whole thread was going to be tearing me apart after I saw the first couple haha. I wasn't saying I had the same views as him, I just like to get great arguing views from liberty minded people and he is SUPER intelligent very hard to argue with. I can't change his mind on GMO's even though I think it's rediculous, the generic medicine I am still unsure of, the only thing that really bugs me is the sanctions. I need to get more knowledge of Rand over all for myself (for final decision on support) and others. I am not going to give up on people just because they are "democrat" or "liberal." I have a better overall record changing those views than that of Neocon repubs.

[WarAnonymous]

That's the kind of attitude that alienates us from them. It sounds like this single issue liberal friend is pretty aware politically. He knew how Rand voted, name 10 of your neighbors who can say the same. He's open to discussion. These are the people we NEED. Get them the information that it will take to help them understand the why. I'll vote over and over for someone who's beliefs may differ from mine if they intend to vote constitutionally.

Yeah he does his homework. I am still unsure of why Rubio over Rand he never went into full details but I know he must of had his reasons. This guy can name Congressman, Senators, and Govs and their voting records like it's his business. The healthcare argument was a tough one.

[Smart3]

RAND PAUL WOULD MAKE A HORRIBLE PRESIDENT!

said no Libertarian/Libertarian-leaning Conservative ever.

[RickyJ]

In terms of the GMO issue, as I recently said in another thread:

If so many citizens are concerned about GMO (and yes the number is exponentially growing) then smart employers who want to maximize their profit will start labeling their non-GMO foods "Non-GMO". I don't understand why you have to force them to list it on there. If they don't list it, assume it has GMO. If it doesn't have GMO, trust me, every smart business will put it on there. If the demand for non-GMO food gets large enough, businesses will do all they can to take GMO out and list GMO-free on their food products.


No government regulation needed.....free market.

And you would believe them just because they slap an unregulated label on it? I sure wouldn't trust them just because of a label they put on it that is not ever inspected for accuracy.

[WarAnonymous]

And you would believe them just because they slap an unregulated label on it? I sure wouldn't trust them just because of a label they put on it that is not ever inspected for accuracy.

Yes and No. Again free market.... A private organization could rise and provide labels upon inspection.

[Natural Citizen]

The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNlfg9F-BhY)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNlfg9F-BhY


Libertarians should be opposed to government mandates forcing food companies to label genetically modified foods. We should support the free market and getting the government out of the food industry. Let's not give more power to the FDA. Many companies already voluntarily label food containing no genetically modified ingredients.

"The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to 'capture,' where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of 'modified' to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone"- Ron Paul.

You know...the kid is ok bright. Healthy spirit...good communication skills and some relevant scribbles on the table. But what we learned in science class relative to ones gnome and a few other relevant particulars is a different discussion of sorts relative to the citizenship at the heart of the matter. And that's what it's about. Or should be. Ultimately. Technically yer talking transhumanism...in a nation of by and for ahem "people":rolleyes:...supposedly in a nation under God...from which they had some notion once that they were created in the form of...before they figgered upon maybe let the machine patent the body parts and such . Ever heard of the term "You are what you eat"? Is comical once you think about it. "No labels"....So...hm..?

I think that's far more relevant and obvious once one really gives Codex and a couple of other tid bits a once over along with current events and legislation that pertain to them...and you. All of them though. Not just some convenient ones that get one temporarily by for the duration of a cycle and on their historical perception/relevance until they figure out what the heck the future truly entails. There's a profound issue or set of issues far more demanding of folks' attention than feel good speak that is itself a hurdle. I think libertarians are wrong in scope regarding the matter. Correct in near scope and relevant as far as the issues are acknowledged or understood in today's world by them but ultimately is irrelevant if they remain short sighted.

I know kids who actually act and talk just like her. On their own and unscripted even. Which is good so..yeah. Just need to look beyond the grassy knoll on some stuff is all. Perhaps better even to improve to the means actually to be able to look and understandbeyond it so that it can be seen is maybe a better way to scribble it. What we have now are political folks defending their own position as far as they seem to understand it but absent of those outliers such as those from the relevant fields who have been removed from the political process of it for so long. I think it's been a practical divide up until now but soon must be undivided in a manner that would encourage a broader perspective on...lets say the universal citizenship of it all.

I don't know how many folks around here are as old as dirt like me who may remember speak of a time when the right was today's left and today's left was yesterday's right but there was such a time. Not entirely that long ago even. These were times of great paradigm change, social change, policy/outlook change...geopolitical change, etc. Those things happen because of those in the middle. And not always politically motivated parties. What they bring to the table, how they did it and so forth (vague description, I know). Is happening again. I don't know that committing to a particular brood during the current replay of yesterday's phenomenon is quite the way to go but maybe it is. Who knows. But definately must look beyond short scope shenanigans. Change is a big thing and happens irrelevant of chitter chatter along the way so make it worthwhile, I think is best. It's not just a political discussion. Moving more toward a technological outlook on the matter which will require words of wisdom from a truly third party previously removed. Disruption certainly do make things new again. Will see...

I'd like to know what Rand's position is on the science of the matter before even considering what he supports as far as whatever "Who" is applying the technology. Does he even understand it? The technology, that is? Because if he doesn't then there's no way anyone can support discussion that he comprehends what those who paid to fund opposition to prop 37 want to do with it along with all of the questionable other legislation waiting in the corner over there that can only exist in the presence of a misinformed illusion and pressure to further the growth of what was the free market at one point but is no longer that. More of a hedonic adaptation, I guess, is the better description.