Poll: As of now, do you support Rand Paul?

[Brett85]

This has been posted before, but I wanted to post this in the General Politics section to get more people to participate in the poll and see whether it might lead to a more accurate sample. I would appreciate it if everyone would vote in the poll.

[Brett85]

And if you do support Rand Paul, do you realize that he doesn't support abolishing the standing army and is an "enemy" and a "statist" for taking that position?

[Natural Citizen]

I'm back and forth with him. Almost to the extent that if he doesn't address his position on things I find to be important that I'd vote for a given Democrat or mainstream Republican who does should one choose to run.

An example would be that he's quick to support non-labeling of gmo food on the premise of free market theory yet offers no position on the actual science of the poisoning and the strongarming of farmers by the goons these corporations are hiring to bully them. Also a major conflict of interest with the merging of Monsanto and FDA players. This is by no means free market whatsoever.

But that's only one little thing. I have more. Also wondering how conforming he is to Massie's recent screed on Fox business regarding the H1-B and it's affect toward American students in the S.T.E.M. program should we continue to educate foreign students instead of our own.

I've got a pretty long list of things I want to keep an eye out for from Rand Paul. Not holding my breath on a majority of them though with all of the novelty issues taking center stage.

[phill4paul]

Why are you all worried about it? Who's payroll are you on?

[Brett85]

Why are you all worried about it? Who's payroll are you on?

It just seems as though Rand shouldn't get any support from people around here since he's a statist and an enemy of liberty because he doesn't support abolishing the army.

[phill4paul]

It just seems as though Rand shouldn't get any support from people around here since he's a statist and an enemy of liberty because he doesn't support abolishing the army.

YOU are part of the problem. YOU.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

As of now, no. I don't agree with his version of educating Republicans (if you want to call it that) and I certainly am not a fan of his watered down foreign policy.

[BuddyRey]

No "undecided" or "ambivalent" option?

I like (most of) what I'm seeing from him so far, but I'm not yet sure I'd vote for him

[sailingaway]

It just seems as though Rand shouldn't get any support from people around here since he's a statist and an enemy of liberty because he doesn't support abolishing the army.

Why don't you ask how many people's support turns on abolishing the army?

Not voting. The percentage who vote next to the percentage who come each day is never going to be representative, I don't really understand why you do this.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The percentage who vote next to the percentage who come each day is never going to be representative

Is there a poll here that's not true of? Usually the ones that do the best get only 100-something votes.

[sailingaway]

Is there a poll here that's not true of? Usually the ones that do the best get only 100-something votes.

I know that. But he does it over and over and then cites the results as if they are meaningful. He is trying to spot trends. I am just pointing out the dips and peaks on polls like this here are self selected and not representative.

[phill4paul]

It just seems as though Rand shouldn't get any support from people around here since he's a statist and an enemy of liberty because he doesn't support abolishing the army.

OK, ya want a transition with a politician that has BALLS.

The standing Army is dissolved. The savings from this goes into the Dept. of the Navy. The Navy increases its spec op capability through the Marine Corps. All the top operators from other groups get rolled into Recon. Not MARSOC, rather, Force Recon. Air Force Operations are in kind given over to the Navy. No need for forward projecting bases for staged occupations. Constitutional and achievable on less than 40% of the current budget. Or better.

[Anti Federalist]

Soooo, what's going on here?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Has there been a "FINAL opinion on Rand Paul?" thread yet?

[sailingaway]

Soooo, what's going on here?

TC was having an argument about standing armies with someone and now its a poll about Rand. That is the best I can make out.

[phill4paul]

Soooo, what's going on here?

My point EXACTLY.................

[Natural Citizen]

TC was having an argument about standing armies with someone and now its a poll about Rand. That is the best I can make out.

Hm. If I would have known that then I wouldn't even have given my two cents. I rarely do polls anyhow.

[Anti Federalist]

So, here's a picture of a Newfie.

http://i.imgur.com/SO4pURi.jpg

[Natural Citizen]

Is that a composite deck? I was thinking about installing one of those. Seems like I've heard they're a pain in the ass to clean.

[dillo]

Ideologically GJ is better, charisma wise i think rand has a legit shot at the presidency

[phill4paul]

ArIdeologically gj is better, charisma wise i think rand has a legit shot at the presidency

"Legit shot" means handlers not swayed by future positions, media not swayed by corporate interest, computer voting not driven by special interest corporation programmers and political parties that will change the rules if anyone gets "too close."

You're fooling yourself..

[dillo]

"Legit shot" means handlers not swayed by future positions, media not swayed by corporate interest, computer voting not driven by special interest corporation programmers and political parties that will change the rules if anyone gets "too close."

You're fooling yourself..

Perhaps but whats the point of life if you dont have hope

[phill4paul]

Perhaps but whats the point of life if you dont have hope

I've got tons of hope. I just realize the truths. And where that leaves me with my hopes.

Besides this poll doesn't even have a "kludge is a douchebag" option which pretty much relegates it to an "Official" Collins thread which pretty much reads... weak sauce.

[noneedtoaggress]

Perhaps but whats the point of life if you dont have hope

You'd only lose hope if you put all your eggs in the "politics" basket.

There's a lot of turds in that basket. Try not to spoil all your eggs!

[oyarde]

Here is my gut reaction , does not matter what I think now, by 2016 the debt, deficits , unfunded liabilites will be so far out that there is no reverse.I may vote for him and will predict that you will likely have no one better to vote for.It is every man for himself now .You must prepare.

[alucard13mmfmj]

worse case scenario = Rand is lesser of 3 evils (Democrat and whoever is the favorite establishment republican contender).

[phill4paul]

Here is my gut reaction , does not matter what I think now, by 2016 the debt, deficits , unfunded liabilites will be so far out that there is no reverse.I may vote for him and will predict that you will likely have no one better to vote for.It is every man for himself now .You must prepare.

This "saviour" Rand may well be still born. We will see. Prepare. Indeed.

[Michigan11]

Rand is as good as Ron to me. What's funny is my girlfriends family was scared of Ron yet she said they are hoping for Rand. Others that liked Ron are saying what's the point were screwed by 2016. Either way It makes me realize how much work we have and how much potential by hearing feedback from the traditional repub voters. Interesting times we live in no doubt about it

[WarAnonymous]

The problem is with a lot of people leaving the Republican party, will there be a turnout to vote in the primaries? Or do people want to stay away from the party? I know a lot of Independents and Dems wanted Ron Paul but wouldn't vote in the Primaries, could we have the same situation but worse?

[Michigan11]

The problem is with a lot of people leaving the Republican party, will there be a turnout to vote in the primaries? Or do people want to stay away from the party? I know a lot of Independents and Dems wanted Ron Paul but wouldn't vote in the Primaries, could we have the same situation but worse?

I think you just answered your own question. These people you refer to never voted. We never had them. Trust me I know what you mean. It's time to storm the castle brother and stop playing checkers.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I think you just answered your own question. These people you refer to never voted. We never had them. Trust me I know what you mean. It's time to storm the castle brother and stop playing checkers.
You're onto something here.

[speciallyblend]

voted yes, even though i am not a big rand fan. The gop can only nominate rand paul or they will lose colorado and the election. If rand paul cannot come out in favor of legal marijuana medical and personal. Then i doubt even rand will win colorado. Rand Paul is the gop's only option left, anyone else the gop nominates and they better create a new state with electorals since they will lose the swing state of colorado.

[Suzu]

It just seems as though Rand shouldn't get any support from people around here since he's a statist and an enemy of liberty because he doesn't support abolishing the army.What on earth have you been smoking?

[fisharmor]

This "saviour" Rand may well be still born. We will see. Prepare. Indeed.

The "savior" Ron was in the womb for 30 years. That's how we knew he was legit.

[Brett85]

What on earth have you been smoking?

I was told in another thread that anyone who doesn't support abolishing the army and gutting the military is an enemy of liberty and a statist. So I would just think that should rule Rand out as a Presidential candidate in 2016. We might have to figure out a way to bring Murray Rothbard back from the dead and run him instead.

[belian78]

Seems like TC, CaptLou, compromise and a few others do nothing but try to start (or keep alive) petty arguments like these around here.

[NOVALibertarian]

Rand has probably shaken hands with a statist before. That is enough to categorize him as a statist and as Ron's demon spawn.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Seems like TC, CaptLou, compromise and a few others do nothing but try to start (or keep alive) petty arguments like these around here.

They're my favorite posters.

[July]

I was told in another thread that anyone who doesn't support abolishing the army and gutting the military is an enemy of liberty and a statist. So I would just think that should rule Rand out as a Presidential candidate in 2016. We might have to figure out a way to bring Murray Rothbard back from the dead and run him instead.

That's because it's technically true--the size and scope of the State and degree of militarization is proportional to the amount of liberty. The question then becomes, how much liberty is acceptable to sacrifice to the State and why? If I'm not mistaken Russell Kirk and others did argue that some amount of liberty is necessary to sacrifice. Many here may agree with that (or not), but the curtailing of liberty is still what we are talking about.

I think it's counterproductive to always think of it in only black and white terms like this, but it's helpful in understanding political theory. How do you know what size the State should be, if we don't first ask what it's origin and functions are?

[sailingaway]

So, here's a picture of a Newfie.

http://i.imgur.com/SO4pURi.jpg

and a chew toy!

[Brett85]

That's because it's technically true--the size and scope of the State and degree of militarization is proportional to the amount of liberty. The question then becomes, how much liberty is acceptable to sacrifice to the State and why? If I'm not mistaken Russell Kirk and others did argue that some amount of liberty is necessary to sacrifice. Many here may agree with that (or not), but the curtailing of liberty is still what we are talking about.

I think it's counterproductive to always think of it in only black and white terms like this, but it's helpful in understanding political theory. How do you know what size the State should be, if we don't first ask what it's origin and functions are?

Having a strong military is essential to the preservation of liberty. Liberty is something that has to be defended. It can't ever be taken for granted. Gutting the military and having a weak defense is ultimately the most anti liberty position there is, because we wouldn't have much liberty at all if we end up living under the rule of the Chinese or some other foreign power.

[moostraks]

Having a strong military is essential to the preservation of liberty. Liberty is something that has to be defended. It can't ever be taken for granted. Gutting the military and having a weak defense is ultimately the most anti liberty position there is, because we wouldn't have much liberty at all if we end up living under the rule of the Chinese or some other foreign power.

Should we expand TSA and militarize the police as well then? This is an honest question to you as that is why they are being sold to us as benefits to our society. Are we still more free if we are under such a financial burden we are drowning in debt owned by foreign countries to keep maintaining the current military?

Your language is leading. If we had not allowed the spending to become so ridiculously over the top it wouldn't be gutting. It is obscene how much of a financial drain military spending has become to our society.

http://rjscorner.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/military-by-country.jpg

Poll needs more options, imo...

[FrankRep]

I'm back and forth with him. Almost to the extent that if he doesn't address his position on things I find to be important that I'd vote for a given Democrat or mainstream Republican who does should one choose to run..

I hope you at least see him as a step in the right direction.

:-p

[Brett85]

Should we expand TSA and militarize the police as well then? This is an honest question to you as that is why they are being sold to us as benefits to our society. Are we still more free if we are under such a financial burden we are drowning in debt owned by foreign countries to keep maintaining the current military?

Your language is leading. If we had not allowed the spending to become so ridiculously over the top it wouldn't be gutting. It is obscene how much of a financial drain military spending has become to our society.

Did I say that we shouldn't cut any spending at all from the Pentagon's budget? Of course not. I argue in favor of cutting "defense spending" all the time. But, there's a right and a wrong way to do it. The right way to do it is to focus on the overseas spending, cutting hundreds of billions out of the Pentagon's budget by ending wars and closing down foreign military bases. Also, we should audit the Pentagon and get rid of countless waste within the Pentagon's budget, and we should save money by figuring out how to do things more efficiently. You mentioned the TSA, and I think that should be privatized. I think that private companies could handle airport security better than the TSA. There are lots of ways that we can cut the Pentagon's budget, but we shouldn't do it by actually gutting the military or supporting disarmament here at home.

[noneedtoaggress]

Having a strong military is essential to the preservation of liberty. Liberty is something that has to be defended. Gutting the military and having a weak defense is ultimately the most anti liberty position there is, because we wouldn't have much liberty at all if we end up living under the rule of the Chinese or some other foreign power.

Defending something by infringing upon it is a contradiction.

Liberty can be defended against without infringing upon it. In fact that's the only way liberty can truly and logically be defended.

You're trying to tell me I should be more afraid of "the Chinese" than an ex-military cop who is No Knock Raiding my neighbor's house because they have a medical marijuana "Grow Op" or "criminal" Raw Milk distribution? Yeah, the Chinese aren't going to rule over this land based on the simple fact that even without a military the american people flat out would not let them. Occupation isn't as easy as you make it seem.

Let's be real here. The military as an organization is ultimately anti-liberty. It's even a socialist institution charged with defense services. The soviets claimed to be defending freedom too. It doesn't matter if you say it though, it's about your actions, if the words don't match up they're just empty rhetoric. Liberty necessarily must be violated for that organization to exist. It's necessarily a protection racket when protection is forcibly funded. We can clearly see this when the racket is used for military adventurism to achieve political goals which actually puts the american people in more danger which is the opposite of the purported purpose. Again government does it wrong, and socialism produces a poor, wasteful product for consumers. A state military is absolutely not necessary, even if there were a threat of foreign invasion. It's a socialist tool for politicians and maintenance of their political power and influence. Plain and simple: It's a sham.

What if the military does not equal liberty?

But that's too absurd, ridiculous, and offensive to even take into consideration, right? Even if it was a sham you really wouldn't want to know, would you? And it would contradict what you know to be "politically correct". Just the thought of it would have so many horrifying implications, wouldn't it? But... what if it's true? I mean that's what you're trying to protect, right? Liberty? What if your support is in fact creating more tyranny than liberty? Could it be possible? Would it be worth it to investigate? (http://mises.org/document/1092/Myth-of-National-Defense-The-Essays-on-the-Theory-and-History-of-Security-Production)

[moostraks]

Did I say that we shouldn't cut any spending at all from the Pentagon's budget? Of course not. I argue in favor of cutting "defense spending" all the time. But, there's a right and a wrong way to do it. The right way to do it is to focus on the overseas spending, cutting hundreds of billions out of the Pentagon's budget by ending wars and closing down foreign military bases. Also, we should audit the Pentagon and get rid of countless waste within the Pentagon's budget, and we should save money by figuring out how to do things more efficiently. You mentioned the TSA, and I think that should be privatized. I think that private companies could handle airport security better than the TSA. There are lots of ways that we can cut the Pentagon's budget, but we shouldn't do it by actually gutting the military or supporting disarmament here at home.

Guess you needed this graph too:

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/imagecache/chart_content/Active%20military%20personnel.JPG

And the militarized police? Are we safer because of them? Why such dedication to spend money on so many full time military? How has TSA improved things liberty-wise? Are you okay with a private military? If not, then why should TSA not also be gov't run as they are supposedly protecting our borders through transportation checkpoints. Does your view of liberty support expansion of TSA to all public transportation areas or is this where the military will be guarding us from these threats you fear?

Have you taken the time to think what having this many troops patroling domestically would look like? Have you taken the time to consider how some soldier is going to account for whether he has secured his assigned area from foreign invaders? Does your view of liberty include checking everyone in any place or at anytime for their proof of citizenship?

[Athan]

I do. I don't defend him to purists, but in my view, we need to show that libertarianism can win. If we don't get him in, you can bet globalists will get their man.

[Brett85]

Guess you needed this graph too:

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/sites/www.intellectualtakeout.org/files/imagecache/chart_content/Active%20military%20personnel.JPG

And the militarized police? Are we safer because of them? Why such dedication to spend money on so many full time military? How has TSA improved things liberty-wise? Are you okay with a private military? If not, then why should TSA not also be gov't run as they are supposedly protecting our borders through transportation checkpoints. Does your view of liberty support expansion of TSA to all public transportation areas or is this where the military will be guarding us from these threats you fear?

Have you taken the time to think what having this many troops patroling domestically would look like? Have you taken the time to consider how some soldier is going to account for whether he has secured his assigned area from foreign invaders? Does your view of liberty include checking everyone in any place or at anytime for their proof of citizenship?

Actually, your graph proves my point. China has a larger military than we do even though they spend about 100 billion on defense a year compared to the 600 billion that we spend. There's so much waste in the military budget that we can get rid of without reducing the size of our military by a single soldier. We should look to China as an example of a country that has a strong military and still doesn't have a very big defense budget. There are ways that we can do things a lot more efficiently that would save a lot of money and still allow us to have a strong military. As far as the TSA, I said that they shouldn't be in charge of airport security, because I think private companies could handle airport security better than the TSA. I'm not sure if there are other necessary functions of the TSA, such as border security. I would think that other agencies could assist in border security.

[FSP-Rebel]

By making this poll again, you're essentially inviting the vocal minority to spew their negativity and/or derive anything one can conjure to not support him. #thread protest

[kcchiefs6465]

Were your last six polls asking basically the same thing not accurate samplings?

[The Gold Standard]

We should look to China as an example

Not if liberty is the goal. If police state is the goal, then sure. I hope they don't though. I would rather the government be so inefficient trying to implement their police state that they bankrupt themselves.

[Brett85]

Were your last six polls asking basically the same thing not accurate samplings?

Probably not, because I posted the other polls in Rand's sub forum where his supporters are more likely to gather. It seems like there should be a more representative sample in the General Politics forum.

[Brett85]

Not if liberty is the goal. If police state is the goal, then sure. I hope they don't though. I would rather the government be so inefficient trying to implement their police state that they bankrupt themselves.

Having a strong military for defensive purposes equals a police state in what universe?

[Anti Federalist]

and a chew toy!

Who realizes it...Slobber inbound!

[The Gold Standard]

Having a strong military for defensive purposes equals a police state in what universe?

Because a strong military is never used only for defensive purposes. The reason China hasn't invaded the United States to this point has nothing to do with the U.S. military. It is because 300 million Americans have guns waiting for any invader.

[kcchiefs6465]

Probably not, because I posted the other polls in Rand's sub forum where his supporters are more likely to gather. It seems like there should be a more representative sample in the General Politics forum.
Fair enough. 'Support' is bad phrasing of the question, imo. I support Rand Paul and his efforts against drone warfare. I do not support undying allegience to Israel. To simply answer the question, yes, I support Rand Paul. I need reassurances for him to have my vote for presidency. I need 'change' [from the status quo- there's no need to twist my words, I believe you know what I mean] if he is going to have my enthusiastic support and me actively promoting him.

[kcchiefs6465]

Having a strong military for defensive purposes equals a police state in what universe?
The thing is that our military is used for offensive political schemes and 'old money' interests. Your statement sounds good to the ears. People will eat that shit up. I read your phrase of 'defensive purposes' as a new trans-Arabian pipeline, though. Or keeping the petrodollar alive. Or protecting Israel. [I know, I know, 'I'm obsessed']

[kcchiefs6465]

Because a strong military is never used only for defensive purposes. The reason China hasn't invaded the United States to this point has nothing to do with the U.S. military. It is because 300 million Americans have guns waiting for any invader.
It's also because we are their consumers. The customer is always right. ;)

[robert68]

Because a strong military is never used only for defensive purposes. The reason China hasn't invaded the United States to this point has nothing to do with the U.S. military. It is because 300 million Americans have guns waiting for any invader.

Asian countries don’t have the history of and inclination for global empire the US does.

[The Gold Standard]

Asian countries don’t have the history of and inclination for global empire the US does.

Well I used China because that is the one he used. The reason no one has invaded us in 200 years is because the population is (or was) armed.

[The Gold Standard]

It's also because we are their consumers. The customer is always right. ;)

Maybe, because the Chinese government likes using us to hold down their own people, but eventually the Chinese people will demand to become consumers themselves, and they won't need us anymore.

[Original_Intent]

Would I vote for him? A qualified probably/maybe. Would I donate or promote him? A definite no at this point. But I'll be watching him.

[Seraphim]

Not supporting Rand is liken to shooting your foot off. He's not perfect. No one is.

[robert68]

Not supporting Rand is liken to shooting your foot off. He's not perfect. No one is.

Is there anything he could do or say that would cause you to “shoot your foot off”?

[CaptLouAlbano]

I support Rand because of the likely contenders he most closely aligns with the principles and positions I hold. Is he perfect? No, but no one is, nor will there ever be a perfect candidate. In all honesty, I am much more excited about his bid for the nomination than I was for Ron's because I believe him to have a realistic shot at the nomination, where Ron was always a longshot.

If polling looks good, my wife and I will max out from the start, and I am already in the beginning stages of organizing a ground team here in my precinct for canvassing.

[mad cow]

Asian countries don’t have the history of and inclination for global empire the US does.

Google Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

[robert68]

Google Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_East_Asia_Co-Prosperity_Sphere)


It promoted the cultural and economic unity of the East Asian race. It also declared the intention to create a self-sufficient "bloc of Asian nations led by the Japanese and free of Western powers".


That was far from an attempt at global empire; and at least partly an attempt to be free of them.

[mad cow]

Google The Rape Of Nanking.

Edit:Here's Wiki's take on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_rape_of_Nanking

[erowe1]

The largest empire in history was the Mongolian Empire, I think.

[robert68]

Google The Rape Of Nanking.

Edit:Here's Wiki's take on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_rape_of_Nanking

I know that subject better than you, and you’re missing the point. In short, the Asians don’t have histories of imperialism extending far from their neighborhoods; into Europe, the Americas, Africa, and the Middle East. That’s far from the case with the US, as well as many of it's European allies.

[ZENemy]

I flat out do not support the throne anymore regardless of who sits in it.

[kcchiefs6465]

I know that subject better than you, and you’re missing the point. In short, the Asians don’t have histories of imperialism extending far from their neighborhoods; into Europe, the Americas, Africa, and the Middle East. That’s far from the case with the US, as well as many of it's European allies.
Meh. Different empires throughout time. It isn't as if Asia is free from empires. Technology wasn't as advanced then and made it much more difficult for world conquest to be feasible. [though I'm sure some would have raped the whole world's wealth had they been able to] Another thing is how could they aim to conquer places they had not known existed? Conquest and a strive for power are human characteristics. Asians aren't exempt. It being Europeans and us lately is just another chapter in time. Empires collapse, and new ones rise.

[mad cow]

I know that subject better than you, and you’re missing the point. In short, the Asians don’t have histories of imperialism extending far from their neighborhoods; into Europe, the Americas, Africa, and the Middle East. That’s far from the case with the US, as well as many of it's European allies.

I would answer google Genghis Khan,but what's the point...

[robert68]

I would answer google Genghis Khan,but what's the point...

Obviously before the US existed, but indeed, what’s the point. Viva American exceptionalism! :rolleyes:

[RonPaulFanInGA]

The anti-Rand crowd here is more noisy than numerous.

[moostraks]

Actually, your graph proves my point. China has a larger military than we do even though they spend about 100 billion on defense a year compared to the 600 billion that we spend. There's so much waste in the military budget that we can get rid of without reducing the size of our military by a single soldier. We should look to China as an example of a country that has a strong military and still doesn't have a very big defense budget. There are ways that we can do things a lot more efficiently that would save a lot of money and still allow us to have a strong military. As far as the TSA, I said that they shouldn't be in charge of airport security, because I think private companies could handle airport security better than the TSA. I'm not sure if there are other necessary functions of the TSA, such as border security. I would think that other agencies could assist in border security.

*bangs head on keyboard*

The fact that you would want us to model ourselves after the military of China speaks volumes about you.

I see you skipped over all the other questions:

And the militarized police? Are we safer because of them? Why such dedication to spend money on so many full time military? How has TSA improved things liberty-wise? Are you okay with a private military? If not, then why should TSA not also be gov't run as they are supposedly protecting our borders through transportation checkpoints. Does your view of liberty support expansion of TSA to all public transportation areas or is this where the military will be guarding us from these threats you fear?

Have you taken the time to think what having this many troops patroling domestically would look like? Have you taken the time to consider how some soldier is going to account for whether he has secured his assigned area from foreign invaders? Does your view of liberty include checking everyone in any place or at anytime for their proof of citizenship?

The supposed purpose of TSA :

The organization was charged with developing policies to protect U.S. transportation, especially in airport security and the prevention of aircraft hijacking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_Security_Administration
Hence my questions to you regarding the need to expand TSA in your opinion due to your statements regarding the need for increased security in the United States.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Besides this poll doesn't even have a "kludge is a douchebag" option which pretty much relegates it to an "Official" Collins thread which pretty much reads... weak sauce.

Right. Polls here need a retarded throw-away option for people who want to vote, but don't want to take an actual stance. :rolleyes:

[mad cow]

Obviously before the US existed, but indeed, what’s the point. Viva American exceptionalism!

Yeah,Manchuria,Mongolia,China,Formosa,Burma,Philip pines,Vietnam,Cambodia,Laos,Korea,Thailand and more Pacific Island nations than you can shake a stick at all hated the Japanese occupiers for their freedoms.

[RickyJ]

He was wearing a beanie not long ago touching the wailing wall and bowing his head. If that doesn't scream phony, I don't know what does.

http://destroyzionism.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/rand-paul.jpg

[devil21]

needs more options

[RickyJ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=94rcOVJBMYQ#!

[jmdrake]

And if you do support Rand Paul, do you realize that he doesn't support abolishing the standing army and is an "enemy" and a "statist" for taking that position?

I take it this is a "Let me get approval for my personal position" thread?

Anyhow, here's my view. I agree with Jefferson and Washington that standing armies are a threat to liberty. I don't agree that everyone who supports a standing army is an enemy. I don't think, based on some of the "positions" Rand has taken that he really believes everything he says. Case in point the idea of deporting people, or even putting them in prison for "attending radical speeches." That, of course, is insane. So the only reason I can support Rand in the light of that is....I believe he was lying to Sean Hannity. Or what about the Civil Rights Act? I've got mixed feelings about it. I agree that constitutionally it's a problem. I don't buy into the analysis that some libertarians have taken. Regardless, Rand once said that parts of it should have been rewritten. Then he came back and say "Oh I would have voted for it as written in its entirety." I understand exactly why he said what he said. But do I really believe his sudden conversion of full support to the CRA? So if Rand supports standing armies, is it principle (he thinks they're constitutional and a good thing), pragmatism (maybe not constitutional, and maybe a threat to liberty, but a necessary evil) or politics (forget what I think about this, I can't win Iowa without taking the typical GOP position on this)? I dunno.

[phill4paul]

Right. Polls here need a retarded throw-away option for people who want to vote, but don't want to take an actual stance. :rolleyes:

http://www.ayokasystems.com/wp-content/uploads/office-space.jpeg

You'll get over it.

[Brett85]

He was wearing a beanie not long ago touching the wailing wall and bowing his head. If that doesn't scream phony, I don't know what does.

It certainly shows that he's not anti semetic, anyway. I'm certainly happy about that.

[cajuncocoa]

Are we going to do this poll every week until Jan. 2016? It's still too soon.

[NOVALibertarian]

Bump for more discussion.

[Lucille]

Voted yes, at last. #StandwithRand

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?406466-Rand-Paul-filibustering-Brennan-nomination-on-Senate-floor

[FSP-Rebel]

Bump for more discussion.
If after today these 29 negative nancys don't eat crow, I have no use for them.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

If after today these 29 negative nancys don't eat crow, I have no use for them.

They probably weren't voting anyway.

[erowe1]

He was wearing a beanie not long ago touching the wailing wall and bowing his head. If that doesn't scream phony, I don't know what does.


How does that scream phony? I've prayed there before. If you went to Jerusalem, would you not for some reason?

[COpatriot]

30 fools have visited this thread.

[The Free Hornet]

And if you do support Rand Paul, do you realize that he doesn't support abolishing the standing army and is an "enemy" and a "statist" for taking that position?

Well I was going to vote after reading post #1 but why do you have to go full retard in post #2????