PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul at Ken Cuccinelli Rally Va. Beach




mad cow
10-22-2013, 02:52 PM
From an email I just received:

On Monday, October 28th, U.S. Senator Rand Paul will be joining me in Virginia Beach for a Get Out The Vote rally at the Filipino Cultural Center at 12:30PM.

Senator Paul and I have fought together many times to combat the Federal Government, and we both know just how much harm Washington-insider Terry McAuliffe can do to Virginia. Rand Paul has been a true fighter for liberty in the Senate, and I am proud to have his support for Governor.

I hope you can join me and Senator Rand Paul for this important event!

GOTV Rally with Ken Cuccinelli and Rand Paul
October 28th
12:30PM-1:30PM

helenpaul
10-22-2013, 05:10 PM
i may be there!!

RonPaulFanInGA
10-22-2013, 05:36 PM
Cuccinelli needs all the help he can get. From today:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2013/virginia/election_2013_virginia_governor

McAuliffe (D): 50%
Cuccinelli (R): 33%
Sarvis (L): 8%

Mr.NoSmile
10-22-2013, 05:40 PM
Even the press in Virginia is fed up with this race:


A major Virginia newspaper announced on Sunday that it “cannot in good conscience” endorse Terry McAuliffe or Ken Cuccinelli in the state’s gubernatorial race, which has shaped up to be a deeply negative contest.

“We find it impossible to endorse any of the 2013 candidates with even minimal zeal,” opined the Richmond Times-Dispatch in a lengthy opinion article.

Their only thing about Sarvis is his lack of experience. But if you needed any proof about both Parties being two sides of the same coin...well, here you go.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/virginia-governor-race-richmond-times-dispatch-98587.html

cajuncocoa
10-22-2013, 05:54 PM
Cuccinelli needs all the help he can get. From today:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2013/virginia/election_2013_virginia_governor

McAuliffe (D): 50%
Cuccinelli (R): 33%
Sarvis (L): 8%

Go Sarvis!

Bastiat's The Law
10-23-2013, 12:39 AM
Looks like Sarvis lost support to McAuliffe?

RonPaulFanInGA
10-23-2013, 04:38 AM
Go Sarvis!

He's "going" all the way to a sweet distant last-place finish.

Brett85
10-23-2013, 07:40 AM
It seems like the government shutdown really hurt Cuccinelli.

RonPaulFanInGA
10-23-2013, 09:32 AM
It seems like the government shutdown really hurt Cuccinelli.

It really did. He nose-dived in the polls because of it. GOP-leaning pollster Rasmussen is now also giving Democrats a big lead (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories/generic_congressional_ballot) in the generic congressional ballot.

The shut-down was kind of the worst of both worlds for the GOP. They took a huge hit with the national voting public, and didn't get anything from it after caving to Obama. Now I at least understand why Team Red types like McCain and Graham hated it so much.

Brett85
10-23-2013, 09:48 AM
It really did. He nose-dived in the polls because of it. GOP-leaning pollster Rasmussen is now also giving Democrats a big lead (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories/generic_congressional_ballot) in the generic congressional ballot.

The shut-down was kind of the worst of both worlds for the GOP. They took a huge hit with the national voting public, and didn't get anything from it after caving to Obama. Now I at least understand why Team Red types like McCain and Graham hated it so much.

The only good thing is that most of the elections won't be until next November. It's hurt Cucinelli a lot, but most voters have a short attention span and will mostly forget about it by the time the 2014 elections come around, unless another government shutdown occurs before then.

AuH20
10-23-2013, 09:51 AM
McAuliffe and his cronies have pumped millions of dollars into the race slamming Cuccinnelli as something that he isn't. The Clinton crime family wins again.

Brett85
10-23-2013, 12:37 PM
Quinnipiac just came out with a poll that shows Cuccinelli down by 7 points. It's weird that Rasmussen came out with that poll when they're usually considered to be a "conservative" poling organization.

Christian Liberty
10-23-2013, 12:39 PM
I'm with Cajun. Go LP!

Brett85
10-23-2013, 12:49 PM
I'm with Cajun. Go LP!

Why? You have a guy who's libertarian enough that he was endorsed by Ron Paul, and the Libertarian Party candidate is just going to cause McAulliffe to win. And the Libertarian Party candidate is said to be more of a Gary Johnson libertarian; he's probably less libertarian than Cuccinelli on most issues.

Krzysztof Lesiak
10-23-2013, 02:54 PM
I wish Ron Paul had endorsed Sarvis. Cuccinelli is good on several issues but he completely loses me with his extremist/theocratic social policy.

helenpaul
10-23-2013, 03:18 PM
the race isnt over just yet.

Woods
10-23-2013, 04:22 PM
The libs are throwing everything into this, including Bloomberg's money, as they did with Booker-Lonegan. But the RINO establishment is not coming in to help any candidate that is too Tea Party.

FSP-Rebel
10-23-2013, 06:02 PM
....
:eek: Over an hour in and no mod has taken any initiative on this sort of miscreant lingo? Clearly, someone has no sense of property rights and is downright disgusting while they're at it.

RonPaulFanInGA
10-23-2013, 06:27 PM
:eek: Over an hour in and no mod has taken any initiative on this sort of miscreant lingo? Clearly, someone has no sense of property rights and is downright disgusting while they're at it.

Now I'll never know what was written.

Todd
10-23-2013, 06:54 PM
It seems like the government shutdown really hurt Cuccinelli.

It's the "They terk er Jerbs!!!!" syndrome. Can't have people messing with federal goodies now.

scrosnoe
10-23-2013, 10:23 PM
Steady as she goes Cuccinelli is taking the high road and the voting population is not necessarily the polling population. The shutdown rhetoric will turn on the Dems eventually, but we do need to be less shrill on the issues while working for life and for liberty for ALL as we go!

Press on and ignore Sarvis. He is spitting away a few votes from both candidates but will finish where he is now -- a distant 3rd.

I would suggest getting involved with the Cuccinelli campaign if you are anywhere near enough to do that and help make a difference.

Make sure you have access also!

I would also note that Cuccinelli has Gunowner's of America (GOA) backing so that bodes well for him/us on 2nd Amendment issues.

cajuncocoa
10-24-2013, 09:12 AM
He's "going" all the way to a sweet distant last-place finish.Maybe....but maybe he will do enough to teach a lesson to the GOP to put up a better candidate. The GOP candidate doesn't deserve to win this race, and certainly shouldn't be heralded on a liberty message board. IMO.

compromise
10-24-2013, 09:29 AM
Maybe....but maybe he will do enough to teach a lesson to the GOP to put up a better candidate. The GOP candidate doesn't deserve to win this race, and certainly shouldn't be heralded on a liberty message board. IMO.

He's heralded on a liberty message board because this is "Ron Paul Forums" and "Ron Paul" endorsed him.

speciallyblend
10-24-2013, 09:41 AM
i will say it nicer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSB7QpldGTQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSB7QpldGTQ GO SARVIS!!

cajuncocoa
10-24-2013, 09:42 AM
He's heralded on a liberty message board because this is "Ron Paul Forums" and "Ron Paul" endorsed him.

Has this board always sanctioned everyone that Ron has endorsed? I can't remember who it was right now, but I remember someone said he's made some bad picks in the past. What about Rand's endorsement of Romney (which didn't mean anything, remember?)

speciallyblend
10-24-2013, 09:43 AM
He's heralded on a liberty message board because this is "Ron Paul Forums" and "Ron Paul" endorsed him.


can mods remove my + i meant minus not plus.

speciallyblend
10-24-2013, 09:43 AM
Maybe....but maybe he will do enough to teach a lesson to the GOP to put up a better candidate. The GOP candidate doesn't deserve to win this race, and certainly shouldn't be heralded on a liberty message board. IMO.

meant to + this comment not the sheeps.

RonPaulFanInGA
10-24-2013, 09:51 AM
meant to + this comment not the sheeps.

You ever notice how so many that don't like others' opinions use the term "sheep"? When everyone is using the same word, it begins to look like...well, you know.

cajuncocoa
10-24-2013, 10:09 AM
You ever notice how so many that don't like others' opinions use the term "sheep"? When everyone is using the same word, it begins to look like...well, you know.

LOL...a lot of people use a lot of the same words. Does that make them look like "sheep" to you?

"Sheep" means blindly following someone, not making choices on your own ... climbing on board a bandwagon just because Ron endorsed, for example.

compromise
10-24-2013, 10:20 AM
Has this board always sanctioned everyone that Ron has endorsed? I can't remember who it was right now, but I remember someone said he's made some bad picks in the past. What about Rand's endorsement of Romney (which didn't mean anything, remember?)

He endorsed Lamar Smith in 2009, back when Ron was in Congress. Smith was facing a Tea Party primary challenge and leadership (both in the US House and in Texas GOP) wanted Texas conservatives to endorse him and so ward off the challenge. Ron also endorsed Don Young before that, in 2008. Young is a moderate Republican who supports marijuana legalization. In the end, he narrowly beat a primary by Sean Parnell (now Governor of Alaska), who was only slightly more fiscally conservative and much more authoritarian on the marijuana issue. They knew that many of the supporters of the challenger would be aligned with Ron, so they pretty much forced Ron to endorse Lamar. With Don it might have been more willing, but it's likely the establishment originally proposed the idea to Ron. So, that's really just two endorsements of long-term incumbent House members.

Ron has never endorsed the establishment pick in open seat races, such as this gubernatorial election. Also, Ron is now no longer a Congressman. He is no longer under the influence of the establishment. His endorsements from now on are almost certainly genuine.

Political reasons were a major cause of the Romney endorsement, but I'm not one of those people that don't believe it didn't mean anything (you're probably thinking of LibertyEagle), I personally voted for Romney because of Rand's endorsement. Remember, Rand only endorsed a week before the Kentucky Republican Convention and a month after the Ron Paul 2012 campaign announced they were winding down. At that point, Romney was the de-facto Republican presidential nominee and federal Republicans almost unanimously endorsed him. So really it was between Romney and Obama and of the two, Romney came out as slightly better.

Rand is in a very different position from Ron and you can't really equate an endorsement by a retired Congressman with that of a top-tier presidential candidate & Senator.

RonPaulFanInGA
10-24-2013, 10:28 AM
"Sheep" means blindly following someone, not making choices on your own ... climbing on board a bandwagon just because Ron endorsed, for example.

Look, I'm one of the last people here you should be preaching this too. I have infractions from a certain moderator-who's-disappeared-lately for not blindly believing Ron Paul could win in June-August 2012, or his positions on things such as earmarks, or pretending he's so much more principled than Rand Paul, despite things like running tough-on-drugs commercials back in 1996, when he was seeking office as a non-incumbent.

That said, endorsements are pointless. This website went over this in the past multiple times with Smith, Young and Romney. But unlike Lamar Smith and Don Young, Ron Paul endorsed the right guy here, so I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Keith and stuff
10-24-2013, 10:28 AM
Has this board always sanctioned everyone that Ron has endorsed? I can't remember who it was right now, but I remember someone said he's made some bad picks in the past. What about Rand's endorsement of Romney (which didn't mean anything, remember?)
No. Ron Paul has endorsed dozens of anti-liberty candidates in the past. But most of those endorsements happened at the same time. Almost all of his other endorsements have been to folks that are pretty good like Ken or actually liberty candidates.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, recently endorsed the sponsor of the Internet Sales Tax bill, designed to hurt businesses in all 50 states and greatly increase taxes in most states. It's perhaps the worst bill to recently pass the Senate. Heck, Rand even endorsed Mitch. So, while I highly respect Rand, I have to very carefully consider why he makes each of his endorsements.

cajuncocoa
10-24-2013, 10:28 AM
He endorsed Lamar Smith in 2009, back when Ron was in Congress. Smith was facing a Tea Party primary challenge and leadership (both in the US House and in Texas GOP) wanted Texas conservatives to endorse him and so ward off the challenge. Ron also endorsed Don Young before that, in 2008. Young is a moderate Republican who supports marijuana legalization. In the end, he narrowly beat a primary by Sean Parnell (now Governor of Alaska), who was only slightly more fiscally conservative and much more authoritarian on the marijuana issue. They knew that many of the supporters of the challenger would be aligned with Ron, so they pretty much forced Ron to endorse Lamar. With Don it might have been more willing, but it's likely the establishment originally proposed the idea to Ron. So, that's really just two endorsements of long-term incumbent House members.

Ron has never endorsed the establishment pick in open seat races, such as this gubernatorial election. Also, Ron is now no longer a Congressman. He is no longer under the influence of the establishment. His endorsements from now on are almost certainly genuine.

Political reasons were a major cause of the Romney endorsement, but I'm not one of those people that don't believe it didn't mean anything (you're probably thinking of LibertyEagle), I personally voted for Romney because of Rand's endorsement. Remember, Rand only endorsed a week before the Kentucky Republican Convention and a month after the Ron Paul 2012 campaign announced they were winding down. At that point, Romney was the de-facto Republican presidential nominee and federal Republicans almost unanimously endorsed him. So really it was between Romney and Obama and of the two, Romney came out as slightly better.

Rand is in a very different position from Ron and you can't really equate an endorsement by a retired Congressman with that of a top-tier presidential candidate & Senator.

Yep to all of that. I'll just say that this is another one of Ron's picks that I reject. Doesn't matter though; I don't live in Virginia. If I did, I'd vote Sarvis.

Saint Vitus
10-24-2013, 10:33 AM
He's "going" all the way to a sweet distant last-place finish.

He's got about the same chance of winning as Ken Santoru...er Cuccinelli does.

compromise
10-24-2013, 10:42 AM
No. Ron Paul has endorsed dozens of anti-liberty candidates in the past. But most of those endorsements happened at the same time. Almost all of his other endorsements have been to folks that are pretty good like Ken or actually liberty candidates.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, recently endorsed the sponsor of the Internet Sales Tax bill, designed to hurt businesses in all 50 states and greatly increase taxes in most states. It's perhaps the worst bill to recently pass the Senate. Heck, Rand even endorsed Mitch. So, while I highly respect Rand, I have to very carefully consider why he makes each of his endorsements.

That individual also opposed the NDAA, intervention in Syria, increasing the debt limit, TARP, 2008 stimulus, domestic drone strikes and foreign aid to Egypt. Aside from the Internet Sales Tax thing, Enzi is still a conservative. Also, Rand must do whatever he can to stop Cheney arriving in the US Senate. A new Cheney-Cotton-Ayotte war caucus would be absolutely disastrous for Rand.

FSP-Rebel
10-24-2013, 10:56 AM
He's got about the same chance of winning as Ken Santoru...er Cuccinelli does.
Santorum was a "go along to get along" Senator while Cooch used states' rights arguments attempting to litigate VA out of Ocare and appears a strong advocate for gun rights. Establishment folks are usually the crony business republicans like Romney, Bush, Snyder and the like with plenty of money to show for it. Cooch was picked by conservative delegates at their state convention over the more establishment candidate and he's clearly a better choice. This is one of our main issues here in MI and that's to ditch the primary where the insiders can buy their candidate's way in over the choice of the party base. Cooch is a great choice for VA Gov despite the left's attempt to play up the 'no contraceptives for women' routine, which they get plenty of mileage out of considering all the Bloomberg and Clinton crime family money that's being funneled into this race trying to get another blue state for 2016. Against the establishment pick, I'd clearly back Sarvis because it's a no-brainer. Conservative T-party picks usually can be trusted on fiscal matters and gun rights and in this scenario Cooch is very strong there. This was a unique endorsement like Broun for Senate not the Lamar Smith political piddles of yesteryear.

RonPaulFanInGA
10-24-2013, 11:30 AM
He's got about the same chance of winning as Ken Santoru...er Cuccinelli does.

Maybe (or maybe not), but getting single-digit support is humiliating.

Christian Liberty
10-24-2013, 11:33 AM
Why? You have a guy who's libertarian enough that he was endorsed by Ron Paul, and the Libertarian Party candidate is just going to cause McAulliffe to win. And the Libertarian Party candidate is said to be more of a Gary Johnson libertarian; he's probably less libertarian than Cuccinelli on most issues.

I'm not sure what Sarvis believes, but Cuccinelli is a problem for reasons GunnyFreedom explained quite well awhile ago. Essentially, his views on sodomy aren't just one random view that he's not libertarian on, its a deliberate attempt to create a law that punishes a non-crime for the purpose of being able to convict people that he thinks committed "real crimes" but without evidence.

That wasn't explained very well, Gunny explained it better, but do you get why this would be a problem?

BTW: Ron Paul endorsed Ted Cruz. I really don't give a crap about his endorsements. I honestly think that's one area where he's failed to show prudential judgment.

cajuncocoa
10-24-2013, 11:34 AM
Maybe (or maybe not), but getting single-digit support is humiliating.

Not really. Considering how the two-party system attempts to freeze out alternative parties (and, specifically the GOP in this race) it's not humiliating at all.

RonPaulFanInGA
10-24-2013, 11:44 AM
Not really. Considering how the two-party system attempts to freeze out alternative parties (and, specifically the GOP in this race) it's not humiliating at all.

I thought the Libertarian Party was all about personal responsibility? Yet when it comes to their own failures, all they ever do is blame state laws, money, polling organizations, the media, really anything and everything but themselves.

cajuncocoa
10-24-2013, 11:49 AM
I thought the Libertarian Party was all about personal responsibility? Yet when it comes to their own failures, all they ever do is blame state laws, money, polling organizations, the media, really anything and everything but themselves.

My view of your statement is that libertarians are about putting the blame where it rightly belongs. There certainly are situations where individuals don't take responsibility for their own actions and look to blame external forces that really have nothing to do with the problem. Unfortunately, that isn't true in this case. The Dems and the GOP have setup roadblocks against the LP and other alternative parties, and the media plays lapdog (please don't tell me you didn't notice they did this to Ron Paul? That was probably at the GOP establishment's urging, too).

Brett85
10-24-2013, 12:01 PM
I'm not sure what Sarvis believes, but Cuccinelli is a problem for reasons GunnyFreedom explained quite well awhile ago. Essentially, his views on sodomy aren't just one random view that he's not libertarian on, its a deliberate attempt to create a law that punishes a non-crime for the purpose of being able to convict people that he thinks committed "real crimes" but without evidence.

That wasn't explained very well, Gunny explained it better, but do you get why this would be a problem?

BTW: Ron Paul endorsed Ted Cruz. I really don't give a crap about his endorsements. I honestly think that's one area where he's failed to show prudential judgment.

The whole sodomy thing is concerning, but I don't think the issue was that Cuccinelli ever wanted to bring back those laws for the purpose of punishing consenting adults for having oral sex.

scrosnoe
10-24-2013, 01:01 PM
That individual also opposed the NDAA, intervention in Syria, increasing the debt limit, TARP, 2008 stimulus, domestic drone strikes and foreign aid to Egypt. Aside from the Internet Sales Tax thing, Enzi is still a conservative. Also, Rand must do whatever he can to stop Cheney arriving in the US Senate. A new Cheney-Cotton-Ayotte war caucus would be absolutely disastrous for Rand.

^^^ very astute observation! TY

fisharmor
10-24-2013, 01:09 PM
The whole sodomy thing is concerning, but I don't think the issue was that Cuccinelli ever wanted to bring back those laws for the purpose of punishing consenting adults for having oral sex.

The point that FF (and presumably also Gunny) was making is exactly that. He had no intent of prosecuting people for sodomy. He just wanted something else he could nail people on (pun intended) so that he could lock up whomever he wished.

Three months ago I was going to vote for him.
The more his shenanigans get exposed, the less likely it is I'd even hold the door for him, much less welcome him as the overlord of the commonwealth.

rich34
10-24-2013, 01:12 PM
I'd like to believe that the reason Rand is putting his head on the line for so many candidates is because when donation time comes around he's going to have one helluva money bomb that could potentially make Ron's look like chump change. Maybe, maybe not, but I can only hope..

Bastiat's The Law
10-24-2013, 04:36 PM
No. Ron Paul has endorsed dozens of anti-liberty candidates in the past. But most of those endorsements happened at the same time. Almost all of his other endorsements have been to folks that are pretty good like Ken or actually liberty candidates.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, recently endorsed the sponsor of the Internet Sales Tax bill, designed to hurt businesses in all 50 states and greatly increase taxes in most states. It's perhaps the worst bill to recently pass the Senate. Heck, Rand even endorsed Mitch. So, while I highly respect Rand, I have to very carefully consider why he makes each of his endorsements.

Is it really that hard to figure out? He'll endorse to block ultra neocons from coming into power.

speciallyblend
10-24-2013, 05:37 PM
being originally from va, I am encouraging everyone i know in va to vote SARVIS.

GregSarnowski
10-24-2013, 05:49 PM
Sarvis only needs to get 10% to give the state LP ballot access for years. which will allow them to compete in lower level races, many of which currently go uncontested. That's the endgame -- so that future LP candidates can actually spend their time and money campaigning instead of most of it just trying to get on the ballot.

speciallyblend
10-24-2013, 06:00 PM
Sarvis only needs to get 10% to give the state LP ballot access for years. which will allow them to compete in lower level races, many of which currently go uncontested. That's the endgame -- so that future LP candidates can actually spend their time and money campaigning instead of most of it just trying to get on the ballot.

so true the wasted vote is the gop establishment. GO SARVIS!!!!

Brett85
10-24-2013, 06:07 PM
The point that FF (and presumably also Gunny) was making is exactly that. He had no intent of prosecuting people for sodomy. He just wanted something else he could nail people on (pun intended) so that he could lock up whomever he wished.

Wasn't he trying to lock up a child predator?

Mr.NoSmile
10-24-2013, 06:34 PM
Is it really that hard to figure out? He'll endorse to block ultra neocons from coming into power.

If that's the case, by that logic, wouldn't he endorse every neoconservative now? Heck, wouldn't he endorse Lindsey Graham just to spite Cash, Mace and Bright?

AuH20
10-24-2013, 06:36 PM
so true the wasted vote is the gop establishment. GO SARVIS!!!!

Too bad the GOP establishment is directly opposed to Cuccinelli. But whatever makes you feel good, I guess.

Keith and stuff
10-24-2013, 06:38 PM
Is it really that hard to figure out? He'll endorse to block ultra neocons from coming into power.


Heck, Rand even endorsed Mitch. So, while I highly respect Rand, I have to very carefully consider why he makes each of his endorsements.
I don't know the positions of either the lady in WY or the guy in KY but I heard the KY guy is a Tea Party guy.

Occam's Banana
10-24-2013, 06:57 PM
Wasn't he trying to lock up a child predator?

As I understand it, he was trying to lock up someone for whom he did NOT have sufficient evidence to charge with or convict of "child predation." Otherwise, he could have done so. (Either that, or apparently "child predation" must be legal in Virginia - in which case you would think he would be more concerned about the absence of "child predation" laws rather than the application of "sodomy" laws. But I guess not ...)

speciallyblend
10-24-2013, 07:49 PM
Too bad the GOP establishment is directly opposed to Cuccinelli. But whatever makes you feel good, I guess.
i do not trust him. He is typical gop bs right winger est or not. A vote for Sarvis is more importnant then wasting it on a losing gop candidate. The gop is fossil fuel we need more then the gop.

Warlord
10-24-2013, 07:51 PM
If that's the case, by that logic, wouldn't he endorse every neoconservative now? Heck, wouldn't he endorse Lindsey Graham just to spite Cash, Mace and Bright?

Ron couldn't endorse against incumbents when he was a congressman as that would have got him thrown out the party. He might stick to that as not to ruin things for his son so don't expect any endorsement against Graham

speciallyblend
10-24-2013, 07:59 PM
Too bad the GOP establishment is directly opposed to Cuccinelli. But whatever makes you feel good, I guess.

i do not trust him. He is typical gop bs right winger est or not. A vote for Sarvis is more important then wasting it on a losing gop candidate. The gop is fossil fuel we need more then the gop. 10% and he can open ballot access for others to field against the failed gop/dnc.

cuccinelli just wants to regulate folks his way not the dem way. He only talks small gov. "evolving on marijuana" code for not going to do a damn thing about it. another bs fence sitter maybe should be pushed off the fence. i do not buy his fence sitting bs. his silence lately says everything you need to know. small gov unless it is marijuana. he failed a simple liberty test. he started off early trying to be right then he fell back to bs fence sitting. he cannot even walk the walk.

fisharmor
10-24-2013, 08:04 PM
being originally from va, I am encouraging everyone i know in va to vote SARVIS.

Why'd you leave?


Wasn't he trying to lock up a child predator?

Man, you've really been surprising me with the statist rhetoric the last couple weeks.

speciallyblend
10-24-2013, 08:18 PM
Why'd you leave?



Man, you've really been surprising me with the statist rhetoric the last couple weeks.

one word explains it Colorado!!!!

speciallyblend
10-24-2013, 08:18 PM
not a big george will fan but still good article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-robert-sarvis-virginias-other-choice-for-governor/2013/10/23/1544f8d6-3b5c-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html

compromise
10-25-2013, 07:25 AM
lose Colorado pot weed smoke no longer delegate Rand Paul pander right wing neocon
...

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:38 AM
Man, you've really been surprising me with the statist rhetoric the last couple weeks.

So you're a statist if you want to lock up child predators/child molesters? I guess now I've pretty much heard it all here.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 07:41 AM
one word explains it Colorado!!!!

Yeah, Colorado, "the land of the free," where you aren't allowed to own firearms to defend yourself.

speciallyblend
10-25-2013, 07:49 AM
...

i made a typo and my keyboard didn't ype what i wanted, so it means nothing and i didn't make that post here and if i did it was becuase i was working and didn't make correction ooo you got me there buddy. sometimes my job is more important then making a correction on rpf thread but feel free to tell me where it is so i can fix the typos.

now that you brought it to my attention. I will say let the gop lose colorado rand or not. If the gop does not walk into this state and support legal marijuana medical or personal 100% . They will lose colorado before the election even begins ask romney. I promise!!

speciallyblend
10-25-2013, 07:54 AM
Yeah, Colorado, "the land of the free," where you aren't allowed to own firearms to defend yourself.

you are so full of crap. you know very well the politicians went over the people and now the people have recalled them, you fail sir. colorado the land where the people can overide bs politicians and are doing it. Have you legalized marijuana yet in your state? have you recalled bs state senators who overstepped? if no on both then stfu..

speciallyblend
10-25-2013, 08:05 AM
ok folks sorry for any grammar mistakes or typos, you try to stay up all night working and arguing with rand suck ups. I might comment and make errors but honestly it is rpf forums and if i cannot type which i can't. I can make errors. so sorry if i do and still will. it doesnt change the fact rand pandered his way to the point i could no longer waste my time with him. Wanna know why i focus on marijuana? Because it a huge liberty issue minus marijuana itself and my wifes life depends on it.

I know the colorado marijuana voter block. Doesn't matter if the dem is for or against. Because the gop has been pro- drug war for so long and endorsing the failed drug war. People view the gop in a negative light. If the gop and rand think marijuana is dangerous as they repeat as talking point to the right wing nuts. They will lose the colorado election before it even begins. Wanna bet? If Rand thinks marijuana is dangerous as he has said. He will lose colorado and the election. THE GOP NEEDS TO GROW SOME BALLS AND SUPPORT LEGAL MARIJUANA 100% or they are hypocrites on smaller gov and will lose the state before the election begins. Rand need to back peddle his right wing pandering. i am sure he can ask romney how to flip flop on issues.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 08:17 AM
you are so full of crap. you know very well the politicians went over the people and now the people have recalled them, you fail sir. colorado the land where the people can overide bs politicians and are doing it. Have you legalized marijuana yet in your state? have you recalled bs state senators who overstepped? if no on both then stfu..

I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana, but it's not my number one and only issue, like it is yours. Something like gun ownership is more important to me than marijuana legalization. You don't need to smoke marijuana in order to survive. There are times where you may need to own a gun in order to survive. I hope that the voters in Colorado vote out the politicians who voted for the gun bans, but I wouldn't bet on it since Colorado is an increasingly Democratic/progressive state. They've recalled a couple Senators and reps, which is good, but the Democrats still control the legislature and the governorship.

speciallyblend
10-25-2013, 08:21 AM
I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana, but it's not my number one and only issue, like it is yours. Something like gun ownership is more important to me than marijuana legalization. You don't need to smoke marijuana in order to survive. There are times where you may need to own a gun in order to survive. I hope that the voters in Colorado vote out the politicians who voted for the gun bans, but I wouldn't bet on it since Colorado is an increasingly Democratic/progressive state. They've recalled a couple Senators and reps, which is good, but the Democrats still control the legislature and the governorship.

i guess i must repeat myself but the marijuana issue is beyone it now. It is simple liberty at the basic level and not about marijuana. If your wifes live depended on it. You woud make it #1 to. It is not even about marijuana anymore. It is basic level small gov and freedom and liberty. If a republican can't pass the smell test on it(small gov and individual liberty). Then he/she is full of crap.

if a republican wants to win in colorado he better step up and get the majority voter block that changed the colorado constitution 2 times.Ignoring it is a sure loss!
as for guns, I think it will be reversed the next 2 elections if the gop has some balls to stand for freedom and liberty if not. I will not vote for a republican in colorado even if an evil dem is running against them. I plan to hold the gop accountable with my vote. If they cannot stand for marijuana or guns. We will vote them out. yes there are typos, deal with it folksi ht wrong keys and type faster then i can,get over it:)

RonPaulFanInGA
10-25-2013, 08:22 AM
one word explains it Colorado!!!!

You go on and on about this state that further restricted guns (you can say two were recalled if you want, the law wasn't changed), voted Obama twice and made a total idiot like Hickenlooper its Governor.

speciallyblend
10-25-2013, 08:30 AM
You go on and on about this state that further restricted guns (you can say two were recalled if you want, the law wasn't changed), voted Obama twice and made a total idiot like Hickenlooper its Governor.


i guess you lack the brain power to understand politicans overstepped their bounds and are being recalled. have you recalled your state senator yet? We have to elect folks to change it or did you forget how politics work. please show me in any state where a recall can change a law? are you obama? We have to elect folks first in an election. remeber those things called elections the recall was successful. now we have to move to next step. is there some step you know i have missed? your ignoring facts your post is not true. are you suggesting we ignore election laws and just illegally take the seat and change the law illegally? you are trying to put the cart before the horse, fail. we are doing it the only we can. we start with a recall now we elect someone to the seat that is how it works.

you know why they voted for obama, the gop ran mccain and romney and romneys dumbass came to colorado before the election and told a 2/3 majority voter base to go to hell and they sent romney to hell for it. blame the gop not me or the people of colorado for electing hickenlooper and obama

Brett85
10-25-2013, 08:38 AM
i guess i must repeat myself but the marijuana issue is beyone it now. It is simple liberty at the basic level and not about marijuana. If your wifes live depended on it. You woud make it #1 to. It is not even about marijuana anymore. It is basic level small gov and freedom and liberty. If a republican can't pass the smell test on it(small gov and individual liberty). Then he/she is full of crap.

Ok, but Rand has at least said that it should be legal for people to smoke marijuana for medical reasons, so it seems like you should be able to support him.

speciallyblend
10-25-2013, 08:57 AM
Ok, but Rand has at least said that it should be legal for people to smoke marijuana for medical reasons, so it seems like you should be able to support him.

not enough in my eyes and many in colorado. I call it fence sitting. I agree with him supporting medical .I 100% disagree that marijuana is dangerous. The most dangerous thing about marijuana? Are people who say marijuana is dangerous!! If rand wants to gamble losing a 2/3 majority voter block on personal. Then let him. He has already gambled away me as a delegate. He will need to 100% reverse his right wing pandering if he wants to win colorado. doesn't matter who the dem is. If he wants me as a delegate and i was one for ron paul. Then Rand needs to back peddle alot or erase all the right wing pandering or it will not matter if he is the nominee. If he loses the 2/3 majority voter block in colorado. He will lose colorado and if the gop runs est. they have already lost. bottom line the gop candidate wil haveto support medical and personal 100% or risk losing colorado and the election. You can count on it.

no matter what folks think of me i was a ron paul delegate for the last 2 elections and now rand has pushed me away. Only one way to get me back. Reverse his right wing pandering on these issues and i am not the only one thinking this way. I talk to marijuana activists across party lines. They are not buying rands position on the marijuana issues. The voters in colorado changed the colorado constitution which was no easy task. Rand said what he said and either will have to backtrack or live or die on it. "Marijuana is Dangerous" Rand Paul. that is what the majority voter block has heard so far on his pandering other then he is like obama for ending mandatory and that he respects state rights . neither enough to win that voter block.

correction , over half support legal in colorado, in many counties 2/3 in colorado support ,58% nationally.

compromise
10-25-2013, 10:50 AM
I know the colorado marijuana voter block

Of course you do. That's really the only voter block you seem to know.

RonPaulFanInGA
10-25-2013, 10:53 AM
not enough in my eyes and many in colorado.

Just stop. No poll shows marijuana is one of the biggest issues in which people base their vote.

People care a hell of a lot more about the economy and if they can find work to feed their families than some other person's addictions.

compromise
10-25-2013, 10:55 AM
Just stop. No poll shows marijuana is one of the biggest issues in which people base their vote.

People care a hell of a lot more about the economy and if they can find work to feed their families than some other person's addictions.

Speciallyblend's ideal presidential candidate:

http://oi39.tinypic.com/2j4dh5x.jpg

Rocco
10-25-2013, 11:09 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again; Oh no, Rand won't have somebody badgering GOP delegates over marijuana at the state convention in his name. The brutal and honest truth is we need more qualified and competent delegates anyways.


not enough in my eyes and many in colorado. I call it fence sitting. I agree with him supporting medical .I 100% disagree that marijuana is dangerous. The most dangerous thing about marijuana? Are people who say marijuana is dangerous!! If rand wants to gamble losing a 2/3 majority voter block on personal. Then let him. He has already gambled away me as a delegate. He will need to 100% reverse his right wing pandering if he wants to win colorado. doesn't matter who the dem is. If he wants me as a delegate and i was one for ron paul. Then Rand needs to back peddle alot or erase all the right wing pandering or it will not matter if he is the nominee. If he loses the 2/3 majority voter block in colorado. He will lose colorado and if the gop runs est. they have already lost. bottom line the gop candidate wil haveto support medical and personal 100% or risk losing colorado and the election. You can count on it.

no matter what folks think of me i was a ron paul delegate for the last 2 elections and now rand has pushed me away. Only one way to get me back. Reverse his right wing pandering on these issues and i am not the only one thinking this way. I talk to marijuana activists across party lines. They are not buying rands position on the marijuana issues. The voters in colorado changed the colorado constitution which was no easy task. Rand said what he said and either will have to backtrack or live or die on it. "Marijuana is Dangerous" Rand Paul. that is what the majority voter block has heard so far on his pandering other then he is like obama for ending mandatory and that he respects state rights . neither enough to win that voter block.

correction , over half support legal in colorado, in many counties 2/3 in colorado support ,58% nationally.

Brett85
10-25-2013, 11:11 AM
I think that marijuana could very well be dangerous, or at the very least isn't a good idea for people to use. But I think it should be legal; people shouldn't get thrown in prison for using it. Why do I have to be in favor of something like marijuana, rather than simply saying that it shouldn't be against the law?

RonPaulFanInGA
10-25-2013, 11:58 AM
Because it a huge liberty issue minus marijuana itself and my wifes life depends on it.

i guess i must repeat myself but the marijuana issue is beyone it now. It is simple liberty at the basic level and not about marijuana. If your wifes live depended on it. You woud make it #1 to.

I admit I do not study marijuana very often, because I really do not care much about this issue, but as far as I know, marijuana's medicinal effects are purely palliative. So how does your wife's life depend on it, exactly?

Rudeman
10-25-2013, 04:19 PM
ok folks sorry for any grammar mistakes or typos, you try to stay up all night working and arguing with rand suck ups. I might comment and make errors but honestly it is rpf forums and if i cannot type which i can't. I can make errors. so sorry if i do and still will. it doesnt change the fact rand pandered his way to the point i could no longer waste my time with him. Wanna know why i focus on marijuana? Because it a huge liberty issue minus marijuana itself and my wifes life depends on it.

I know the colorado marijuana voter block. Doesn't matter if the dem is for or against. Because the gop has been pro- drug war for so long and endorsing the failed drug war. People view the gop in a negative light. If the gop and rand think marijuana is dangerous as they repeat as talking point to the right wing nuts. They will lose the colorado election before it even begins. Wanna bet? If Rand thinks marijuana is dangerous as he has said. He will lose colorado and the election. THE GOP NEEDS TO GROW SOME BALLS AND SUPPORT LEGAL MARIJUANA 100% or they are hypocrites on smaller gov and will lose the state before the election begins. Rand need to back peddle his right wing pandering. i am sure he can ask romney how to flip flop on issues.


I don't care about your grammar or typos, I do have a problem with you constantly derailing threads to make it about marijuana. Do you talk about anything besides marijuana? Are you capable of going 1 month or 100 posts (whichever comes first) without mentioning it?

scrosnoe
10-26-2013, 08:57 PM
You go on and on about this state that further restricted guns (you can say two were recalled if you want, the law wasn't changed), voted Obama twice and made a total idiot like Hickenlooper its Governor.

^^^ THIS is a bottom line for me too! We need to get our priorities in order quickly and this (2nd Amendment) is key!

compromise
10-27-2013, 03:06 AM
Speciallyblend, you do know Cuccinelli favors the legalization of marijuana in Virginia, right?

GopBlackList
10-27-2013, 10:09 AM
Why? You have a guy who's libertarian enough that he was endorsed by Ron Paul, and the Libertarian Party candidate is just going to cause McAulliffe to win. And the Libertarian Party candidate is said to be more of a Gary Johnson libertarian; he's probably less libertarian than Cuccinelli on most issues.

What's so libertarian about Cuccinelli and his sodomy laws? The guy is a theocratic fundy. I have friends who are non-believers and Moslem. I don't want them to be subject to a theocracy. I don't care if Ron Paul endorsed him, he's just doing it for political reasons or for obligations.


being originally from va, I am encouraging everyone i know in va to vote SARVIS.

I would definitely vote for Sarvis!

RonPaulFanInGA
10-27-2013, 10:44 AM
What's so libertarian about Cuccinelli and his sodomy laws? The guy is a theocratic fundy. I have friends who are non-believers and Moslem. I don't want them to be subject to a theocracy. I don't care if Ron Paul endorsed him, he's just doing it for political reasons or for obligations.

And the guy who hates home-schoolers weighs in.

FSP-Rebel
10-27-2013, 11:17 AM
If northern Colorado is able to secede, we'll have another state in our column for sure.

libertygold
10-27-2013, 12:02 PM
Unfortunately I think Rand is powerless here. Rand's visit will make no difference but might gain him points with the GOP establishment. McAuliffe has the Clinton machine behind him. A lot of workers who were furloughed during the shutdown live in Virginia and will turn out to vote Democrat no matter what.

FriedChicken
10-27-2013, 01:29 PM
Without any added drama could someone please post the things that they like most about Cuccinelli as a candidate while someone else post the positions they dislike?
Same goes for Sarvis.

I seem to remember reading a disturbing quote from Sarvis on economic policy. Don't want to dig it up at the moment though. I've done zero research for this race (I live in Indiana).

Seems most of what I'm reading on the forum against the GOP candidate is hyperbole or kind of pet issue related. I haven't read anything to lead me to believe the man is as bad as Santorum ... even though some posters here are acting like they're cloned from each other.

Honestly - I've admitted to being ignorant. I don't know anything about the candidates.
But the complaints I've heard about Cuccinelli is that he doesn't advocate for smoking weed (even though he is pro-legalization according to this thread), something about a sodomy law and he is pro-life.

I don't give a care what his personal view on weed is, the fact he wants it legal is enough. (Even if he didn't its an issue I'd disagree with him on but could get over if he had other positive positions and the other candidate [that was polling above 10%] was against it as well)
I don't know the story on the sodomy thing. (I'm not positive I could accurately define sodomy to be honest)
I consider pro-life to be a libertarian position personally.

Some posters really seem to hate the guy. I'm just unsure why.

So why hate him? Why like him?
Why Sarvis? Why not Sarvis?

rich34
10-27-2013, 04:04 PM
What's so libertarian about Cuccinelli and his sodomy laws? The guy is a theocratic fundy. I have friends who are non-believers and Moslem. I don't want them to be subject to a theocracy. I don't care if Ron Paul endorsed him, he's just doing it for political reasons or for obligations.



I would definitely vote for Sarvis!

I understand what you're saying, but id rather have a republican governor instead of not just a democrat, but a Clinton operative running the election in Virginia for 2016 should Rand win the nomination.

Bastiat's The Law
10-27-2013, 05:08 PM
I understand what you're saying, but id rather have a republican governor instead of not just a democrat, but a Clinton operative running the election in Virginia for 2016 should Rand win the nomination.

Exactly. This will have last repercussions into 2016.

Rudeman
10-27-2013, 05:23 PM
Without any added drama could someone please post the things that they like most about Cuccinelli as a candidate while someone else post the positions they dislike?
Same goes for Sarvis.

I seem to remember reading a disturbing quote from Sarvis on economic policy. Don't want to dig it up at the moment though. I've done zero research for this race (I live in Indiana).

Seems most of what I'm reading on the forum against the GOP candidate is hyperbole or kind of pet issue related. I haven't read anything to lead me to believe the man is as bad as Santorum ... even though some posters here are acting like they're cloned from each other.

Honestly - I've admitted to being ignorant. I don't know anything about the candidates.
But the complaints I've heard about Cuccinelli is that he doesn't advocate for smoking weed (even though he is pro-legalization according to this thread), something about a sodomy law and he is pro-life.

I don't give a care what his personal view on weed is, the fact he wants it legal is enough. (Even if he didn't its an issue I'd disagree with him on but could get over if he had other positive positions and the other candidate [that was polling above 10%] was against it as well)
I don't know the story on the sodomy thing. (I'm not positive I could accurately define sodomy to be honest)
I consider pro-life to be a libertarian position personally.

Some posters really seem to hate the guy. I'm just unsure why.

So why hate him? Why like him?
Why Sarvis? Why not Sarvis?

Basically it comes down to socially liberal vs not socially liberal.

Sarvis is socially liberal but very questionable elsewhere (I basically view him as a Bill Maher type libertarian, smoke pot, get gay married, and have abortions).

Whereas Cuccinelli is much more solid on economics, 2nd amendment, govt programs like ACA, but more socially conservative.

I don't live in Virginia so I don't know as much as others might but that's basically a summary from my pov.

ronaldo23
10-28-2013, 01:52 PM
does it affect rands stock if he keeps getting involved in races where his guy doesn't win (virginia is likely to go D, as did new jersey), or do you think the benefits outweigh the risks?

Rudeman
10-28-2013, 02:55 PM
Only if Rand's support is considered a negative (which it isn't). NJ was a long shot and Cuccinelli is behind in the polls by quite a bit, both of those guys were happy to get someone to support them.

supermario21
10-28-2013, 04:46 PM
What I don't get is that Sarvis supports Medicaid expansion (at least open to it) AND taxing people based on how many miles they drive in Virginia, even going as far to say that those miles should be tracked. I'm sorry, but those are bigger red flags that have every day repercussions moreso than even Cuccinelli's defending of a stupid sodomy law.

Bastiat's The Law
10-28-2013, 06:29 PM
does it affect rands stock if he keeps getting involved in races where his guy doesn't win (virginia is likely to go D, as did new jersey), or do you think the benefits outweigh the risks?

No.