Ken Cuccinelli: Defender of the Constitution?? Better read this first! [Archive]

View Full Version : Ken Cuccinelli: Defender of the Constitution?? Better read this first!

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 07:25 AM

December 31, 2011:

Newt Gingrich wants to horsewhip activist judges, but not the one he’s asking to intervene and overturn Virginia’s law (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/31/virginia-attorney-general-intervenes-in-gop-primary-ballot-dispute/) regarding qualifications for the Republican presidential primary.

This is the classic neocon game of contradiction — “These are our eternal principles! — Until they aren’t.”

Gingrich was too lazy to meet the state’s very routine ballot requirements, so now he’s going to whine to some judge — whom he will threaten to subpoena, no doubt, if he loses.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Cuccinelli, who has just announced his intention to run for governor in 2013, stumbled coming out of the gate by siding with Gingrich. Cuccinelli has campaigned in the past as a defender of the Constitution and the Rule of Law — but not when it comes to cronies, apparently.http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/newt-versus-newt/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli is urging Tea Partiers not to support the idea of state interposition. According to a report (http://www.letfreedomringusa.com/news/read/1446), “Attorney Gen. Cuccinelli, in private consultations with the Roanoke group, agreed, noting how Southern states had unsuccessfully invoked the doctrine in the 1960s to resist federal civil-rights legislation. ‘Interposition had a place in history, I told them, and it is not an exalted one,’ Mr. Cuccinelli said.”

That is most unfortunate. I have explained why the civil rights issue as an argument against nullification today is apples and oranges; this discussion comes in a speech of mine that will be repeated on C-SPAN2 this Sunday at 3:30pm ET. Beyond that, what a shame Cuccinelli does not know the real history of the doctrine (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1596981490?tag=lewrockwell&camp=14573&creative=327641&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=1596981490&adid=1MF7JZB8QAM7RWZVT2XG&), and what it was used for. From what I can see, every single time the Principles of ’98 were invoked in antebellum America they sought to expand human freedom. Why is that not “exalted”? Wisconsin objected to unconstitutional aspects of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, quoting Jefferson’s Resolutions of 1798 verbatim. Not exalted? Why buy into the regime’s idea that if we peons are allowed to dissent from federal policy, we’ll surely use this power for evil? Why buy into the idea that we need federal government supervision for our own good?

This Sunday in Orlando those of us who beg to differ will be having a pretty big event (http://www.nullifynow.com/orlando/) in support of nullification; former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson and I are among the speakers. By an interesting coincidence, I recently did a radio interview (to air next month) on nullification with Pat Williams, senior VP of the Orlando Magic.

10:29 am CST on October 8, 2010

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/virginia-attorney-general-interposition-has-a-bad-history/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrest of Ex-Marine Points to Virginia’s Casual Disregard for the Constitution (http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig13/hunter-l2.1.1.html)

And now, evidently, in Virginia you don't even have to commit a crime to be arrested, really kidnapped, and manhandled by officers of the law and unlawfully locked up without charge. Virginia's Attorney General, Kenneth Cuccinelli (who is running for governor in 2013), seems to believe his Commonwealth Attorneys don't even have to charge a person with a crime before Virginia disappears him into its mental-health gulag, what the old Soviet Union used to call the Psihuska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psikhushka). So this is The Virginia Way: GITMO on the Potomac?

Related: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/08/23/marine-sent-to-psych-ward-over-facebook-posts-now-released-but-who-could-be-next/

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 07:27 AM

Let the neg reps fly! :)

Petar

11-05-2013, 07:28 AM

Natural Citizen

11-05-2013, 07:29 AM

I kind of liked Newt on some things. He was right about some of the more relevant things to our nation's prosperity that is less discussed.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 07:29 AM

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 07:30 AM

I kind of liked Newt on some things. He was right about some of the more relevant things to our nation's prosperity that is less discussed.

Whether one supported or liked Newt is not the relevant point in the OP.

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 07:31 AM

The people who are coming out against Ken are just proving that they are worse than dead-weight at this point.

Actively counter-productive.

This is the line right here, and you are either with us or against us.

You should all be purged at this point today.

Totally agree. These same folks will be doing this throughout 2014 as well with other candidates who do not meet their loft standards of purity. With the frequency of their posting, one has to wonder if these trolls are paid operatives of the Progressives.

Natural Citizen

11-05-2013, 07:31 AM

Let the neg reps fly! :)

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/P/d/Q/g/n/P/red-kite-hi.png

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 07:33 AM

Natural Citizen

11-05-2013, 07:35 AM

Whether one supported or liked Newt is not the relevant point in the OP.

Perhaps. Of course, the op isn't as relevant to the future as what Newt was saying. Was just reminded of Newt from your post. Whatever. Proceed...:rolleyes:

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 07:35 AM

FYI, if I get "purged" over this it will speak volumes about this site as a "Liberty" message board.

And I will manage to live out the rest of my life somehow. :rolleyes:

I thought people here really cared about whether someone is actually following and respecting the Constitution rather than just giving lip-service to doing so. If you can defend the actions by KC in the OP then please let's hear what you have to say.

Natural Citizen

11-05-2013, 07:38 AM

FYI, if I get "purged" over this it will speak volumes about this site as a "Liberty" message board.

And I will manage to live out the rest of my life somehow. :rolleyes:

Consider the occasional op-ed if you're banished from the kingdom.

Cap

11-05-2013, 07:43 AM

Being consistent to the constitution bump.

klamath

11-05-2013, 07:44 AM

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 07:59 AM

Another reason to hate Ken Cuccinelli: Ron Paul and Rand Paul supports and campaigns for Ken Cuccinelli.

That should set off some red flags.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 08:08 AM

This is the difference. You actively negative campaign AGAINST the people that Ron and Rand support. When was the last time YOU posted negative threads about McAuliffe?? You are not just, I don't like any them I am out of here, you actively campaign against the people Ron and Rand support as being most aligned with them.
Rand's support didn't stop us from calling Romney out. Why should it be different here? As to posting negative threads about McAuliffe, there's no need....there is no one here touting him as a Liberty Candidate.

phill4paul

11-05-2013, 08:11 AM

http://cdn.meme.li/i/pft8m.jpg

phill4paul

11-05-2013, 08:13 AM

Regardless of how this goes I'm glad it is over today.

pcosmar

11-05-2013, 08:13 AM

Another reason to hate Ken Cuccinelli: Ron Paul and Rand Paul supports and campaigns for Ken Cuccinelli.

That should set off some red flags.

Actually I have lost respect for both. :(

I see no hope for this country,, only more of the same and worse.

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:14 AM

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 08:15 AM

Seriously wonder why people are pushing non liberty candidates yet insisting on using the liberty moniker. Oh yeah...politics as usual. But then not that surprised really.

klamath

11-05-2013, 08:15 AM

Rand's support didn't stop us from calling Romney out. Why should it be different here? As to posting negative threads about McAuliffe, there's no need....there is no one here touting him as a Liberty Candidate.You are intentionally trying to derail the candidate Ron and rand support when you have NO interest in this election. The intent is to defeat Cuccinelli which insures McAuliffe's win. You actions are to defeat the thoses that are not pure and allow the absolute filthy win.

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:16 AM

Totally agree. These same folks will be doing this throughout 2014 as well with other candidates who do not meet their loft standards of purity. With the frequency of their posting, one has to wonder if these trolls are paid operatives of the Progressives.
Or are the operatives the ones that insist that everyone here vote the way they tell them to, or they aren't team players/don't want to win/need to leave and are dead weight?

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 08:19 AM

Cajun, I owe you a +rep, but I have to spread it around first. Remind me.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 08:21 AM

You are intentionally trying to derail the candidate Ron and rand support when you have NO interest in this election. The intent is to defeat Cuccinelli which insures McAuliffe's win. You actions are to defeat the thoses that are not pure and allow the absolute filthy win.
My intent is to call Cuccinelli out on the claim that he is a defender of the Constitution. Nothing more. Can you refute what is stated in the OP?

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:21 AM

Cajun, I owe you a +rep, but I have to spread it around first. Remind me.
I gotcha.

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:21 AM

Cajun, I owe you a +rep, but I have to spread it around first. Remind me.
Sorry, double post. Forums being buggy this morning.

Natural Citizen

11-05-2013, 08:23 AM

Or are the operatives the ones that insist that everyone here vote the way they tell them to, or they aren't team players/don't want to win/need to leave and are dead weight?

You mean that libertarians may serve as a stalking horse?

SilentBull

11-05-2013, 08:24 AM

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 08:25 AM

Seriously wonder why people are pushing non liberty candidates yet insisting on using the liberty moniker. Oh yeah...politics as usual. But then not that surprised really.

You mean people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, the RLC of VA, GOA, and YAL?

klamath

11-05-2013, 08:26 AM

Rand's support didn't stop us from calling Romney out. Why should it be different here? As to posting negative threads about McAuliffe, there's no need....there is no one here touting him as a Liberty Candidate.It is one thing to attack the candidate but Entirely another to Exclusively negative campaign against the one they support. What exactly do you get out of this election insuring a McAuliffe win? Gunny doesn't support Cuccinelli but he doesn't active negative campaign against him.

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:26 AM

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 08:26 AM

Or are the operatives the ones that insist that everyone here vote the way they tell them to, or they aren't team players/don't want to win/need to leave and are dead weight?

When you have a majority of people and organizations that make up the liberty movement supporting a candidate, and then you have those on here who do nothing but attempt to sew discord among that candidate's supporters, they are acting as operatives of the left.

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:28 AM

It is one thing to attack the candidate but Entirely another to Exclusively negative campaign against the one they support. What exactly do you get out of this election insuring a McAuliffe win? Gunny doesn't support Cuccinelli but he doesn't active negative campaign against him.
LOL yeah cause Cajun and Carly got that whole PAC thing just ruining these boards lately with the Cuccinelli ads, amirite?

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:29 AM

When you have a majority of people and organizations that make up the liberty movement supporting a candidate, and then you have those on here who do nothing but attempt to sew discord among that candidate's supporters, they are acting as operatives of the left.
I would challenge you to prove that the majority of the liberty movement (and by that I mean individuals, not orgs that are fundraising 24x7x365) is willing to compromise their beliefs to be on the 'winning team'.

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 08:31 AM

What I mean is exactly what my question pertained to. Are we folks that got behind RP because he didn't compromise on his beliefs, the operatives for expecting that out of those we support in the future? Or are the operatives that have slowly but steadily bullied there way to the forefront on these boards, and insist that if you don't 'play the game of politics' you are dead weight?

Politicians figuratively shove their fists up my ass on a daily basis, so forgive me if I don't feel like 'playing the game' when it comes to my life and my country.

Like it or not, politics is a game, and until libertarians hold a majority position in Congress that game will need to be played. Those who do not play the game, have no seat at the table - plain and simple. If you don't like it, then perhaps you might find bird watching or auto repair a more palatable interest.

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 08:32 AM

I would challenge you to prove that the majority of the liberty movement (and by that I mean individuals, not orgs that are fundraising 24x7x365) is willing to compromise their beliefs to be on the 'winning team'.

Who says Cuccinelli is a compromise of beliefs? I support about 90% or more of what he stands for and that is more than enough for me to warrant sending him a big fat check.

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:33 AM

Surrender your principles, or you have no place at my table. Eh... I'd say that's a pretty broken system, and one that is beyond repair.

klamath

11-05-2013, 08:33 AM

My intent is to call Cuccinelli out on the claim that he is a defender of the Constitution. Nothing more. Can you refute what is stated in the OP?What is the point? We all know he has a less than perfect record but what do YOU get out of it? You will do your part to defeat Cuccinelli for your personal satifaction, and allow McAuliffe and his record as a defender of the constitution to rule?

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:34 AM

Who says Cuccinelli is a compromise of beliefs? I support about 90% or more of what he stands for and that is more than enough for me to warrant sending him a big fat check.

And then next time he knows he can get away with a little more pandering to the party elite, cause ya know, he's still with ya 85% of the time. Then next election he can move even farther away from what he should be, because of all the support he's picking up from whoring himself out, and so on and so on. See how your way will never, ever work?

klamath

11-05-2013, 08:35 AM

kahless

11-05-2013, 08:36 AM

Amazing, people here bashing Cuccinelli when you have a so called Libertarian Sarvis that wants to mandate GPS miles tracking in your car and that Communist McAuliffe.

Ron Paul to Virginians: 'Insane' to Vote for 'Libertarian' Robert Sarvis
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/04/Ron-Paul-to-Virginians-Insane-to-Vote-for-Libertarian-Robert-Sarvis

Specifically referring to the mileage taxes that Sarvis indicated he may support and which may require GPS systems to be installed in everyone's cars, Paul said "anybody who would conceivably vote for someone who would endorse a mileage tax" is "insane" because a mileage tax would be an "invasion of privacy" and would just give the government more money it could waste. In an interview on MSNBC, Sarvis indicated that he could support "vehicle-miles-driven taxes."

I read here every day, more and more it seems this forum does more for helping Progressives get elected than it does for helping the Paul's and the Liberty movement.

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 08:37 AM

Surrender your principles, or you have no place at my table. Eh... I'd say that's a pretty broken system, and one that is beyond repair.

If your "principles" are denigrating anyone who does not agree with you 100%, then you don't have a place at the table. You place yourself on the sidelines and are merely an observer of what is taking place around you.

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:40 AM

Amazing, people here bashing Cuccinelli when you have a so called Libertarian Sarvis that wants to mandate GPS miles tracking in your car and that Communist McAuliffe.

Ron Paul to Virginians: 'Insane' to Vote for 'Libertarian' Robert Sarvis
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/04/Ron-Paul-to-Virginians-Insane-to-Vote-for-Libertarian-Robert-Sarvis

I read here every day, more and more it seems this forum does more for helping Progressives get elected than it does for helping the Paul's and the Liberty movement.
I haven't seen anyone promoting anyone on the left, only trying to hold those that supposedly are 'liberty candidates' to the standards they ask for when claiming that title.

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 08:40 AM

And then next time he knows he can get away with a little more pandering to the party elite, cause ya know, he's still with ya 85% of the time. Then next election he can move even farther away from what he should be, because of all the support he's picking up from whoring himself out, and so on and so on. See how your way will never, ever work?

Then demonstrate how your way will ever work? Purists libertarians make up about 1% of the electorate, and even then there is discord among that group. What is your strategy to take us back to a Constitutional government at the federal and state level? How do you plan to convince 50%+ of the population that your views are correct?

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:40 AM

If your "principles" are denigrating anyone who does not agree with you 100%, then you don't have a place at the table. You place yourself on the sidelines and are merely an observer of what is taking place around you.
How very statist of you.

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:43 AM

Then demonstrate how your way will ever work? Purists libertarians make up about 1% of the electorate, and even then there is discord among that group. What is your strategy to take us back to a Constitutional government at the federal and state level? How do you plan to convince 50%+ of the population that your views are correct?
It would take sticking to principles, sticking to the constitution. It would take years of persistence, and integrity and belief in having that better tomorrow. But with a majority of folks playing a game that's rigged, it will never happen.

AlexAmore

11-05-2013, 08:43 AM

What I mean is exactly what my question pertained to. Are we folks that got behind RP because he didn't compromise on his beliefs, the operatives for expecting that out of those we support in the future? Or are the operatives that have slowly but steadily bullied there way to the forefront on these boards, and insist that if you don't 'play the game of politics' you are dead weight?

Politicians figuratively shove their fists up my ass on a daily basis, so forgive me if I don't feel like 'playing the game' when it comes to my life and my country.

Everyone hates full-time critics. I learned that as a libertarian debating liberals that if I want to be persuasive, I can't just criticize their big government ideas, I need to pro-actively provide alternative solutions. Even Republicans as a whole are starting to catch on to this if you watch Reince Priebus.

Anyway, you're gonna get McAuliffe who will do nothing to benefit Rand in Virginia come 2016. So you all can rest easy tonight. Happy?

klamath

11-05-2013, 08:44 AM

dinosaur

11-05-2013, 08:45 AM

How very statist of you.

Not statist, just an uncomfortable fact of life.

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 08:46 AM

You mean people like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, the RLC of VA, GOA, and YAL?

I'm pretty disappointed that in order to make political gains, people I respect are making morally bankrupt choices. The liberty movement seems to be setting the bar as low as it takes. I won't apologize for feeling that way.

klamath

11-05-2013, 08:46 AM

I haven't seen anyone promoting anyone on the left, only trying to hold those that supposedly are 'liberty candidates' to the standards they ask for when claiming that title.No actively negative campaigning against ONLY them.

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 08:46 AM

How very statist of you.

How so? We have a system of government in place where we elect officials to office. If in order to gain your financial support a candidate has to agree with you 100% of the time, then chances are you are going to be left with no candidates to field for office, or you'll be left with minor party candidates to support (who never win). So if you r time and money are going to no one (or candidates that have zero chance of victory) you are not in the game that is politics. You may not like the game, and that is your choice of course, but your dislike of the game does not negate its existence.

belian78

11-05-2013, 08:46 AM

He is an anarchist so his intent is to destroy all political action.
Fuck you, you have no idea who I am or what I want. LOL

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 08:49 AM

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 08:49 AM

It would take sticking to principles, sticking to the constitution. It would take years of persistence, and integrity and belief in having that better tomorrow. But with a majority of folks playing a game that's rigged, it will never happen.

Which is why I suggested other endeavors. It seems to me that you do not have the stomach for politics.

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 08:50 AM

What is the point? We all know he has a less than perfect record but what do YOU get out of it? You will do your part to defeat Cuccinelli for your personal satifaction, and allow McAuliffe and his record as a defender of the constitution to rule?

LOL..yes it's all up to her whether Cuccunelli wins!

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 08:51 AM

I haven't seen anyone promoting anyone on the left, only trying to hold those that supposedly are 'liberty candidates' to the standards they ask for when claiming that title.
This. I owe you another rep....can someone cover please?

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 08:52 AM

I'm pretty disappointed that in order to make political gains, people I respect are making morally bankrupt choices. The liberty movement seems to be setting the bar as low as it takes. I won't apologize for feeling that way.
And I owe you another rep as well.

klamath

11-05-2013, 08:53 AM

LOL..yes it's all up to her whether Cuccunelli wins!No. Just doing her small little part to see that McAuliffe is elected.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 08:55 AM

Cuccinelli is making sure McAuliffe gets elected all by his little unconstitutional self.

Still waiting for someone to defend the actions by KC in the OP....anybody??

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 08:58 AM

mosquitobite

11-05-2013, 09:02 AM

I don't know what is so hard to understand. Can people just analyze the benefits of the possible outcomes? If Ken wins, this will help Rand Paul in 2016. Rand has proven to be a genius when it comes to getting Republicans to come closer to our side on many things. Rand is being viewed as the leader of the party, meaning many Republicans, even if they aren't genuine, will follow because that's what followers do. They follow leaders. What exactly is the benefit if Ken loses??

PURITY for our movement!! Duh! :rolleyes:

I think some fail to realize that EVERYONE is watching this race as it is somehow a harbinger for 2014 races.

If McAuliffe wins, look for Christie to be the 2016 GOP nominee.

If that happens, Clinton wins.

The way I see it is, right now, this race in VA determines whether the actual libertarian/conservative wing of the party has enough strength to move us back to the right - or not.

If we continue to divide, based on "purity" then we might as well realize our nation is lost to the left.

Barrex

11-05-2013, 09:02 AM

WOW.

http://www.extremekites.com.au/forums/download/file.php?id=10907
http://2media.nowpublic.net/images//e1/81/e181b0fb39e4d5ec5225f344de996c43.jpg

Libertarians and politics. I know it goes against core of your libertarian soul but WOW.

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 09:03 AM

No. Just doing her small little part to see that McAuliffe is elected.

Yes because we have so many voters from Virginia on this board and the whole state hangs in the balance from what is posted on an internet forum.

klamath

11-05-2013, 09:06 AM

IMO, the bad thing about a Cuccinelli victory is that it would be seen as a victory for liberty ... for reasons spelled out in the OP (as well as that whole sodomy overreach thing) that perception alone would, in fact, be very bad for liberty.You are obcessed with sodomy and Freak lifestyles.(And yes freak is the word for it. Look up a freak of nature.). Nothing else matters as much. Massive war, obamacare, gun rights, private property rights, killing children, etc. just don't touch sodomy.

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 09:08 AM

The detractors are just giving us a glimpse of what 2014 will look like on here. I am sure the usual suspects will be all over every liberty candidate that doesn't meet their standards, trying to convince everyone that will listen to them why they shouldn't support these candidates.

Or maybe enough people will just ignore them and they'll go away.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 09:11 AM

You are obcessed with sodomy and Freak lifestyles.(And yes freak is the word for it. Look up a freak of nature.). Nothing else matters as much. Massive war, obamacare, gun rights, private property rights, killing children, etc. just don't touch sodomy.
Same song and dance we heard in 2010 and 2012;GOP made huge gains in 2010, yet all that stuff is still here.

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 09:15 AM

Same song and dance we heard in 2010 and 2012;GOP made huge gains in 2010, yet all that stuff is still here.

While they GOP did make gains, what percentage of the House and Senate caucus are moderates/neo-cons/liberals/progressives and what percentage are tea party/libertarian/constitutionalists/conservatives? You want the answer? The establishment types still outnumber the conservatives, the conservatives have gained in numbers and influence, but the GOP still has enough members that will side with the Dems (just look at the CR compromise for an example).

This is a marathon, not a sprint.

klamath

11-05-2013, 09:16 AM

Same song and dance we heard in 2010 and 2012;GOP made huge gains in 2010, yet all that stuff is still here.What ever. If sodomy is your main issue far from it to take it away from you, carry on.

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 09:16 AM

compromise

11-05-2013, 09:16 AM

Same song and dance we heard in 2010 and 2012;GOP made huge gains in 2010, yet all that stuff is still here.

There's no question that the new Congressmen elected in 2010 and 2012 were on average, far more libertarian than ever before.

In a major shift from the hawkish foreign policy Congress rubber-stamped a decade ago, newer members of the House, weary of war and fresh from the town hall circuit, are more than three times as likely to oppose military action in Syria than their more senior colleagues.

House lawmakers first elected in 2010 or 2012 overwhelmingly oppose striking Syria, with 12 leaning toward supporting authorization and 103 lawmakers leaning or outrightly against it.

Of the lawmakers who have publicly stated a position on Syria, a recent House whip count from Firedoglake shows little support for intervention: 29 yes, 31 lean yes, 128 lean no, 105 no.

Lawmakers elected before 2010 are leaning against or opposed to action in Syria by a factor of 2.7 to 1. For members elected in the past two cycles, opposition to action in Syria is 8.5 to 1.

In the 2010 class, it’s 3 yes, 2 lean yes, 43 lean no, 22 no.
For the 2012 class, it’s 5 yes, 2 lean yes, 17 lean no, 21 no.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 09:18 AM

While they GOP did make gains, what percentage of the House and Senate caucus are moderates/neo-cons/liberals/progressives and what percentage are tea party/libertarian/constitutionalists/conservatives? You want the answer? The establishment types still outnumber the conservatives, the conservatives have gained in numbers and influence, but the GOP still has enough members that will side with the Dems (just look at the CR compromise for an example).

This is a marathon, not a sprint.According to the info in the OP, a Cuccinelli victory would be a setback.

Barrex

11-05-2013, 09:22 AM

According to the info in the OP, a Cuccinelli victory would be a setback.

Democrat would be better?

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 09:23 AM

Democrat would be better?

For those that want to see Rand hampered in 2016 it would be.

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 09:25 AM

According to the info in the OP, a Cuccinelli victory would be a setback.

Libertarians for Terry McAuliffe?

Cap

11-05-2013, 09:30 AM

I haven't seen anyone promoting anyone on the left, only trying to hold those that supposedly are 'liberty candidates' to the standards they ask for when claiming that title.Signature material there.

dinosaur

11-05-2013, 09:33 AM

According to the info in the OP, a Cuccinelli victory would be a setback.

A complete establishment RINO would be a setback. A pretender of the Rubio mold would be a setback. Cuccinelli not so much. This is easily a "better than" case.

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 09:41 AM

I'd take Cuccinelli over Mcauffee, but that doesn't mean he's someone I'd actually vote for.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 09:46 AM

Who cares about the Constitution? Seriously.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 09:51 AM

A complete establishment RINO would be a setback. A pretender of the Rubio mold would be a setback. Cuccinelli not so much. This is easily a "better than" case.

Libertarians for Terry McAuliffe?
Not FOR McAuliffe; AGAINST anti-liberty Cuccinelli.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 09:51 AM

Who cares about the Constitution? Seriously.
Apparently not many here any longer.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 09:56 AM

Apparently not many here any longer.

Good.

And same thing with all this "liberty candidate" garbage. Who cares if somebody is a "liberty candidate"? I don't even know what that label means. It's ridiculous.

"But he's not a liberty candidate." is the same kind of labels-based arguing as "But he's not a Republican."

69360

11-05-2013, 10:06 AM

jonhowe

11-05-2013, 10:08 AM

Let us agree: None of the candidates in the race are liberty candidates. There is no one good to vote for.

So either don't vote, or if you are so inclined, vote for the lesser of the evils. If I was in VA, it'd be, grudgingly, Cuccinelli.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 10:10 AM

According to the info in the OP, a Cuccinelli victory would be a setback.

A setback from what? The status quo? Hardly.

AuH20

11-05-2013, 10:14 AM

Cuccinelli is head and shoulders better than the other two. He is not perfect. Those of you who insist on nitpicking a candidate with no alternative in the election are counterproductive. You will never find a candidate that you agree with 100% unless you yourself are that candidate.

Agreed. It's not even debatable who the best candidate is. Not even a valid comparison.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 10:19 AM

It's surreal to me.

I'm here dangling on the edge of a strict anti-voting stance. About the only reason I'm not there is because of the rare opportunity like this one in Virginia to possibly get someone in high office who's as close to the gold standard that is set by Ron Paul as Cuccinelli is.

If Cuccinelli gets elected, he'll be the best ally we have of all governors, easily, and will be the best we have had in years, save for Sanford and GJ. Maybe Butch Otter's up there somewhere, but still below what Cuccinelli would be.

If we have this opportunity, why pass it up? If the reason is that he's not good enough, then why vote at all? Just take the Lew Rockwell route.

compromise

11-05-2013, 10:23 AM

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 10:28 AM

Who cares about the Constitution? Seriously.

You may be able to nitpick it, but I find this article by Walter Block interesting:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/05/walter-e-block/federalism-is-it-libertarian/

Apparently not many here any longer.

erowe1 isn't a compromiser though. He's an anti-statist who, like many anti-statists, doesn't care about the constitution per say but strongly supports liberty. Ultimately, as an ancap, I'd like to see the constitution eventually abolished too, and I prefer the articles of confederation.

That doesn't change the fact that you made valid points in the OP about where Cuccinelli falls short.

It's surreal to me.

I'm here dangling on the edge of a strict anti-voting stance. About the only reason I'm not there is because of the rare opportunity like this one in Virginia to possibly get someone in high office who's as close to the gold standard that is set by Ron Paul as Cuccinelli is.

If Cuccinelli gets elected, he'll be the best ally we have of all governors, easily, and will be the best we have had in years, save for Sanford and GJ. Maybe Butch Otter's up there somewhere, but still below what Cuccinelli would be.

If we have this opportunity, why pass it up? If the reason is that he's not good enough, then why vote at all? Just take the Lew Rockwell route.

Some people here don't ever vote, but I think the stuff in this OP as well as the stuff Gunny mentioned are serious blackmarks on Cuccinelli. He's not "Almost perfect."

Is he better than Savaris and Mcauffle? Sure. Easily. But should we always vote for the "Lesser of two evils?" No, I don't think so.

With regards to voting, we had a solid Presidential candidate back in 2008, Chuck Baldwin. Not perfect, but solid nonetheless.

We may well have another one in 2016: Rand Paul.

I'd vote for him.

I don't see why saying Cuccinelli isn't good enough means that you shouldn't vote at all.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 10:33 AM

He's not "Almost perfect."

That is definitely true.

If almost perfect is the standard, then there's no point fooling around with voting at all.

If voting is an option for you, then you should look at what you stand to gain and lose. And if Cuccinelli doesn't make it through that cost-benefit analysis, then pretty much nobody does. The exception to this is for those "libertarians" who are socially liberal and place a premium on that side of things.

Baldwin was a non-factor. I voted for him. But I'm not sure if I would again. I would if I happened to be at the polls for some other election. But I wouldn't make a trip just to cast a ballot for him.

Rand is probably better than Cuccinelli. I can't think of anyone else who is. And if we want to increase the number of Rands in high office, then we need to set the bar lower than where he is. Ron Paul only has so many sons.

Todd

11-05-2013, 10:35 AM

I got this from GOA yesteday.

Gun Owners of America

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-gunners gleeful at prospect of a McAuliffe victory

While Rand & Ron Paul hit the trail for Cuccinelli

“For once, a Democrat [in McAuliffe] is talking tough about gun control, as if daring the National Rifle Association to take him on.” -- The Washington Post, 11/1/13

It’s Election Day eve in Virginia.

Tomorrow will determine whether the President’s gun control agenda continues at the state level in the Old Dominion, or if it comes to a screeching halt.

But make no mistake: If Terry McAuliffe gets elected, Virginia will take a sharp turn to the left on gun-related issues.

Michael Bloomberg sees Virginia as a possible pick-up for his cause: “The Independence USA PAC, created by New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), has spent nearly $2.3 million in Virginia this year,” said the Post last week.

Bloomberg’s $2.3 million in favor of McAuliffe, far exceeds the amount spent by GOA and NRA in favor of Ken Cuccinelli.

Referring to Bloomberg’s gigantic ad buy in the state, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said, “Once he takes your guns, he’s coming after your Big Gulp.”

Cuccinelli was on the radio in Northern Virginia this morning appealing for more contributions so that he can run more ads to counter the vicious assaults being leveled against him.

You can give to Ken Cuccinelli’s campaign here.

Senator Rand Paul -- and his father, former Rep. Ron Paul -- have both been stumping for Cuccinelli over the past week.

“What I would like to see for Virginia is a candidate who defends the Second Amendment and will be a champion of the Second Amendment,” said Rand Paul in support of Cuccinelli.

Well, you can be sure of this: Ken Cuccinelli has spent a career defending the Second Amendment, and tomorrow’s election will come down to either him or McAuliffe being elected.

If McAuliffe gets elected, we will be spending a lot of time and money fighting gun control -- both in the state and at the federal level.

Already, the liberal press is crowing about how a McAuliffe victory will invigorate the push for gun control at the national level.

You can make sure that the Democrat’s push for gun control ends tomorrow night.

So please vote for Ken Cuccinelli -- and for his pro-gun Lt. Governor running mate, E.W. Jackson.

Sincerely,
Tim Macy
Vice Chairman

I don't know if by supporting Cuccinelli that means they are all compromised.....but if that organization is then we are all f'd.

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 10:36 AM

That is definitely true.

If almost perfect is the standard, then there's no point fooling around with voting at all.

If voting is an option for you, then you should look at what you stand to gain and lose. And if Cuccinelli doesn't make it through that cost-benefit analysis, then pretty much nobody does. The exception to this is for those "libertarians" who are socially liberal and place a premium on that side of things.

I'm not worried about the fact that he just happens to support a sodomy law. I'm worried about the fact that he seems to want to use it to lock people up for other things without evidence, and because he's apparently no friend to nullification.

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 10:38 AM

I got this from GOA yesteday.

I don't know if by supporting Cuccinelli that means they are all compromised.....but if that organization is then we are all f'd.

Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and now GOA all support Cuccinelli.

AuH20

11-05-2013, 10:44 AM

Mike Bloomberg's PAC has spent 8 million dollars in the race. The Chamber of Commerce is hostile to Ken Cuccinelli as well. That is all you need to know.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 10:45 AM

he's apparently no friend to nullification.

I'm not certain about that. And I'd like to see him put to the test on this as governor. That can't happen if he loses though.

AuH20

11-05-2013, 10:47 AM

I'm not certain about that. And I'd like to see him put to the test on this as governor. That can't happen if he loses though.

That would be a great campaign motto for the MSM to grab on. Nullify federal laws and send blacks into slavery!! Damn, some of these people are thick.

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 10:48 AM

I'm not certain about that. And I'd like to see him put to the test on this as governor. That can't happen if he loses though.

The OP seems to show that he's against it. Do you have any particular reason to reject it?

Don't get me wrong, I hope Cuccinelli wins. He'd be far better than Mcauffle or Savaris (Savaris won't actually win, of course). But he's not principled enough that I'd actually waste my time supporting him like Ron and Rand are right now.

I don't see why you have to absolutely be committed to not voting if you wouldn't vote for someone like Cuccinelli. I'd certainly vote for someone like Ron Paul.

compromise

11-05-2013, 10:49 AM

The OP seems to show that he's against it. Do you have any particular reason to reject it?

Don't get me wrong, I hope Cuccinelli wins. He'd be far better than Mcauffle or Savaris (Savaris won't actually win, of course). But he's not principled enough that I'd actually waste my time supporting him like Ron and Rand are right now.

I don't see why you have to absolutely be committed to not voting if you wouldn't vote for someone like Cuccinelli. I'd certainly vote for someone like Ron Paul.

Will you vote for Rand Paul?

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 10:49 AM

That would be a great campaign motto for the MSM to grab on. Nullify federal laws and send blacks into slavery!! Damn, some of these people are thick.

Trying to reason with people who actually believe that is a waste of our time. This is my point about taking shortcuts. We need to show people that this kind of crap is absurd. We need to wake them up. We need to reform idiots, not cater to them.

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 10:49 AM

Will you vote for Rand Paul?

If Rand is the Republican nominee, I intend to vote for him, barring any unforeseen circumstances.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 10:54 AM

The OP seems to show that he's against it. Do you have any particular reason to reject it?

For one thing, the whole anti-sodomy law kerfuffle. That's an example of him standing up against the federal government, and even the Supreme Court. His willingness to stand up to them (or the possibility of it) is one of the reasons I want to see him in office.

I don't see why you have to absolutely be committed to not voting if you wouldn't vote for someone like Cuccinelli. I'd certainly vote for someone like Ron Paul.

I'd vote for Ron Paul too. But to do that, and to mean it, I think I would need to support and work toward building up a coalition of other elected officials who would support him. To play this game can't just be about one person, it has to be about a team that has power because of the cumulative weight of those on it. And if Cuccinelli's not on Ron's team, then I don't see a team out there, at least not one with any power. This strategy of working within the GOP is like forming a party within a party.

AuH20

11-05-2013, 10:56 AM

Trying to reason with people who actually believe that is a waste of our time. This is my point about taking shortcuts. We need to show people that this kind of crap is absurd. We need to wake them up. We need to reform idiots, not cater to them.

Let me let you in on a little secret. Did Obama tell the American Public that he was going to cater to the banks and destroy everyone's healthcare? Discretion is the way to go.

mosquitobite

11-05-2013, 10:56 AM

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 10:57 AM

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 10:58 AM

Let me let you in on a little secret. Did Obama tell the American Public that he was going to cater to the banks and destroy everyone's healthcare? Discretion is the way to go.

Sorry, I can't justify deception as a tactic. I don't think we'll seriously gain anything if we play the game that way either.

compromise

11-05-2013, 11:00 AM

Hmm... that's a valid point, despite the fact that its an anti-liberty position in the first place.

I agree with you that I'd kind of like to see him tested, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

As for Rand and "Who else" is better than Cuccinelli, Amash, Massie, and Sanford are all better than Rand (Not to mention Ron Paul himself, of course). Not sure if Judge Napolitano will ever be involved in politics again, but if he does, he's among the cream of the crop as well.

Massie voted for the farm bill. I'd say Rand edges him out overall.

AuH20

11-05-2013, 11:01 AM

Sorry, I can't justify deception as a tactic. I don't think we'll seriously gain anything if we play the game that way either.

The people are borderline retarded. You run towards the middle. Win, make YOUR DESIRED changes and slowly but surely you start building a consensus. This isn't rocket science. The MSM is extremely hostile. You disarm them by running with the good ole platitudes.

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 11:01 AM

Massie voted for the farm bill. I'd say Rand edges him out overall.

I don't remember why he did that, but from what I've heard from the people here from Kentucky (Primarily Sola_Fide and Tywysog Cymru) Massie is one of the best. Rand seems to waffle more on foreign policy and be closer to the establishment. I understand why this is the case, it is what it is, but still.

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 11:03 AM

The people are borderline retarded

Borderline? I'd say they are simply retarded period. I don't think you can win without changing that situation somehow. Education is more important than politics, IMO. But ultimately, I don't think there's really any way to win, so I won't be dogmatic on this point.

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 11:09 AM

Borderline? I'd say they are simply retarded period. I don't think you can win without changing that situation somehow. Education is more important than politics, IMO. But ultimately, I don't think there's really any way to win, so I won't be dogmatic on this point.

Education only gets you so far. Have you ever done any canvassing? If you have then you will know that the large majority of voters know very little about the issues, nor do they care to know much more about them. They may have some passing knowledge and opinions about major issues, but on the whole they remain pretty uninformed about the big picture stuff and especially about the details. But every election, these people will go out and vote. It is the job of the activists to drive that vote. A good activist can influence hundreds, if not thousands of voters to sway one way or another, but that same activist will struggle to get people educated on the complexities of the issues, simply because most people do not have that great of an interest in politics. And honestly, this is not a new phenomenon by any means.

Brian4Liberty

11-05-2013, 11:15 AM

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 11:15 AM

For one thing, the whole anti-sodomy law kerfuffle. That's an example of him standing up against the federal government, and even the Supreme Court. His willingness to stand up to them (or the possibility of it) is one of the reasons I want to see him in office.

I'll save my applause for someone who stands up to the Federal Government when it is the Federal Government overreaching. That's not what happened in this case; in fact, it was Cuccinelli who was overreaching.

The "sodomy kerfuffle" is about a case where an adult male obtained oral sex from two consenting young women, aged 16- and 17-years old. Since the age of consent in Virginia is 15 years old and the two women consented, there is no crime (even if the circumstances are creepy; THERE WAS NO CRIME).

Everyone should just go home at that point and get on with their lives, right? Not Ken Cuccinelli.

He proceeded to invoke the sodomy law to get the man in the above case convicted because he COULDN'T GET IT DONE ANY OTHER WAY.

Is that the kind of person you want to call a "liberty candidate" or "defender of the Constitution"? (exempting erowe1 from that question as erowe1 has already stated that the Constitution and liberty doesn't mean anything to him).

Electing people like this to political office just to help Rand become president is counterproductive to say the least. Rand is going to have to stand on his own merits; being associated with the likes of someone like Cuccinelli is not the way to convince anyone that we care about liberty.

I'm not backing down on this, so if the GOP apologists on this site want me to go away, Bryan will have to ban me.

mosquitobite

11-05-2013, 11:17 AM

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 11:22 AM

Lesser of two evils.

Cuccinelli 80% good, 20% evil.
McAuliffe 10% good, 90% evil.

This race will be decided by independents and swing voters. And the majority of them will decide based on TV and radio advertising.

Many people probably used that same reasoning to vote W. Bush over Gore. I voted for Harry Browne and never regretted it. I wonder if those who voted for W. can say the same.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 11:24 AM

And now we're going to start talking people out of educating voters. Great.

You realize that any political gains you make will be very short-lived if voters don't know WHY they should make liberty choices, right?

mosquitobite

11-05-2013, 11:26 AM

erowe1

11-05-2013, 11:28 AM

Is that the kind of person you want to call a "liberty candidate" or "defender of the Constitution"?

Blah blah, liberty candidate, blah blah, defender of the Constitution, blah blah this label that label.

What is this some kind of middle school preps versus stoners thing?

Ender

11-05-2013, 11:32 AM

Here is the answer to your question cajuncocoa, and a good site on state interposition:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/02/interposition-and-heresy-of-nullification-james-madison-exercise-of-sovereign-constitutional-powers

The final statement says:

Whether Madison’s concept of interposition remains a viable and appropriate mechanism today is a question that the present generation of Americans must decide. At the very least, however, Madison would have approved of a vigilant citizenry participating in monitoring the federal constitutional order.

I am disappointed at the name calling and finger pointing in this thread; all this does is show ignorance and bias; if you don't agree with the OP, then at least state why and argue the issue at hand.

The concept of nullification and interposition is extremely important to each individual American and one that everyone should become familiar with from the FF POV.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 11:34 AM

The concept of nullification and interposition is extremely important to each individual American and one that everyone should become familiar with from the FF POV.

I agree. We should support Cuccinelli for the sake of how he might help us advance that cause even if we didn't have another single reason to support him.

CaptLouAlbano

11-05-2013, 11:39 AM

What is this some kind of middle school preps versus stoners thing?

Pretty much. And the kids that were outcasts in middle school are still whining when no one pays attention to them.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 11:40 AM

Newsflash: you can educate AT THE SAME TIME you canvass and put your feet to the street.

Give me someone for whom I can "put my feet to the street" and I would.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 11:40 AM

Blah blah, liberty candidate, blah blah, defender of the Constitution, blah blah this label that label.

What is this some kind of middle school preps versus stoners thing?
If you're not here for liberty candidates and to defend the Constitution, why did you sign up? Just to advance Team Red?

fisharmor

11-05-2013, 11:41 AM

I'll save my applause for someone who stands up to the Federal Government when it is the Federal Government overreaching. That's not what happened in this case; in fact, it was Cuccinelli who was overreaching.

The "sodomy kerfuffle" is about a case where an adult male obtained oral sex from two consenting young women, aged 16- and 17-years old. Since the age of consent in Virginia is 15 years old and the two women consented, there is no crime (even if the circumstances are creepy; THERE WAS NO CRIME).

Everyone should just go home at that point and get on with their lives, right? Not Ken Cuccinelli.

He proceeded to invoke the sodomy law to get the man in the above case convicted because he COULDN'T GET IT DONE ANY OTHER WAY.

Is that the kind of person you want to call a "liberty candidate" or "defender of the Constitution"? (exempting erowe1 from that question as erowe1 has already stated that the Constitution and liberty doesn't mean anything to him).

Electing people like this to political office just to help Rand become president is counterproductive to say the least. Rand is going to have to stand on his own merits; being associated with the likes of someone like Cuccinelli is not the way to convince anyone that we care about liberty.

I'm not backing down on this, so if the GOP apologists on this site want me to go away, Bryan will have to ban me.

I'm not backing down either.
He ran afoul of VCDL several years ago for choosing to prosecute gun crimes where he had the discretion not to.
He has a history of using state power to go after little guys he doesn't like.
And this is who we're supposed to turn the keys to the entire executive branch over to?

I agree. We should support Cuccinelli for the sake of how he might help us advance that cause even if we didn't have another single reason to support him.

I have lots of material reasons not to support him, and the only reason I do have to support him is just talk.

Natural Citizen

11-05-2013, 11:42 AM

This is kind of off topic but just wanted to say to cajuncoacoa that whenever you get on a roll I get to chuckling when I look at your avatar. Heh. :)

Anyhoo...

mosquitobite

11-05-2013, 11:43 AM

Give me someone for whom I can "put my feet to the street" and I would.

Are you involved in your local politics scene at all?

Because I guarantee there is SOMEONE in your state that you can work for if you search them out.

That's what the FACL class teaches in their one day class.

I'm lucky in that I helped get a liberty candidate elected to a local council and I am represented by a really good state rep and state senator. As I work for them, others in the party see me working and trust me, get to know me and we discuss (ie: EDUCATE) important issues. They like me, even if they don't always agree with me.

Brian4Liberty

11-05-2013, 12:04 PM

Many people probably used that same reasoning to vote W. Bush over Gore. I voted for Harry Browne and never regretted it. I wonder if those who voted for W. can say the same.

Ah what an election that was. In the GOP Primary, we had George (humble foreign policy) Bush vs. John (warmonger) McCain. The well-kept secret was that the neo-conservatives were backing both of them. Then in the General Election, we had George (humble foreign policy) Bush vs. Al (wacko) Gore. On the surface, it was clear-cut. Nobody was aware of the cast of characters behind the scenes.

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 12:07 PM

(exempting erowe1 from that question as erowe1 has already stated that the Constitution and liberty doesn't mean anything to him).

He didn't say liberty was meaningless to him, he said the term "liberty candidate" is meaningless to him. Not the same thing.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 12:13 PM

If you're not here for liberty candidates and to defend the Constitution, why did you sign up? Just to advance Team Red?

"Liberty candidates" "Constitution" "team red." Those are all the same thing. You're so drunk on pure partisanship, you can't even see it.

"I can't vote for HIM! He's not one of our kind!"

dinosaur

11-05-2013, 12:15 PM

Many people probably used that same reasoning to vote W. Bush over Gore. I voted for Harry Browne and never regretted it. I wonder if those who voted for W. can say the same.

Not me, I didn't vote for him and am proud of that as well. The wolves in sheep's clothing are very damaging to the freedom movement. I don't see Cuccinelli as comparable to Bush, though. Imperfect is different from imposter.

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 12:17 PM

"Liberty candidates" "Constitution" "team red." Those are all the same thing. You're so drunk on pure partisanship, you can't even see it.

"I can't vote for HIM! He's not one of our kind!"

Its not partisanship. Cajun already explained her reason for not backing Cuccinelli. I agree with her.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 12:18 PM

Are you involved in your local politics scene at all?

LMAO...I'm not some political novice. I've worked for many campaigns over the years. Many of which I regretted later. When someone who is worthy of my time comes along I can be counted on to help (most recently the man who was assaulted at the LA GOP meeting last year who ran for Congress (http://www.dailypaul.com/296358/assaulted-ron-paul-delegate-runs-for-congress)).

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 12:19 PM

He didn't say liberty was meaningless to him, he said the term "liberty candidate" is meaningless to him. Not the same thing.splitting hairs. A liberty candidate would be for liberty; someone who isn't for liberty can't be a liberty candidate.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 12:20 PM

"Liberty candidates" "Constitution" "team red." Those are all the same thing. You're so drunk on pure partisanship, you can't even see it.

"I can't vote for HIM! He's not one of our kind!"

You didn't answer my question: what are you working for if not for candidates who support liberty (i.e., liberty candidates) and those who defend the Constitution?

erowe1

11-05-2013, 12:23 PM

You didn't answer my question: what are you working for if not for candidates who support liberty (i.e., liberty candidates) and those who defend the Constitution?

I'm working toward the aim of decreasing the power of the state, especially at the federal level, by supporting political causes and candidates who stand to help move toward that aim, regardless of whether or not you can slap some one-size-fits-all label on them.

And what is this "candidates who support liberty (i.e. liberty candidates)" drivel? That's meaningless nonsense. Everyone supports liberty in the abstract. You might as well talk about pro-kitten candidates. Judge candidates case-by-case. For you, in Cuccinelli's case, it's all about sodomy. And you want to inflate that into some grand all-encompassing issue of being a "liberty candidate."

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 12:32 PM

I'm working toward the aim of decreasing the power of the state, especially at the federal level, by supporting political causes and candidates who stand to help move toward that aim, regardless of whether or not you can slap some one-size-fits-all label on them.

And what is this "candidates who support liberty (i.e. liberty candidates)" drivel? That's meaningless nonsense. Everyone supports liberty in the abstract. You might as well talk about pro-kitten candidates. Judge candidates case-by-case. For you, in Cuccinelli's case, it's all about sodomy. And you want to inflate that into some grand all-encompassing issue of being a "liberty candidate."

Wrong. Read the OP before jumping to conclusions with intent to insult.

mosquitobite

11-05-2013, 12:33 PM

I linked to a Campaign for Liberty class that talks considerably about how "education" does not change the political landscape.

And your response:

And now we're going to start talking people out of educating voters. Great.

You realize that any political gains you make will be very short-lived if voters don't know WHY they should make liberty choices, right?

When I pointed out that you can educate people AT THE SAME TIME you are out working to advance the cause in any way possible you reply

Give me someone for whom I can "put my feet to the street" and I would.

I point out that there has to be someone you can work to get elected and your response:

LMAO...I'm not some political novice. I've worked for many campaigns over the years. Many of which I regretted later. When someone who is worthy of my time comes along I can be counted on to help (most recently the man who was assaulted at the LA GOP meeting last year who ran for Congress (http://www.dailypaul.com/296358/assaulted-ron-paul-delegate-runs-for-congress)).

So why attack my original comment?
If people consider preaching to the choir as education, we will never move forward.
If people consider getting on the soap box on facebook as education, we will never move forward.

Have you taken the C4L class or not?

Todd

11-05-2013, 12:40 PM

Good grief, I have never seen so much traffic for governors race. lol.

So he is not the ideal Liberty candidate. But lets put it this way.

In no way shape or form do I believe a Cuccinelli victory will set back the Liberty movement either.

Terry McAuliff on the other hand..........

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 12:41 PM

Have you taken the C4L class or not?

I have no intention of taking the C4L class. I was having discussions about liberty with people before C4L existed.

Also, I didn't attack your original comment. My comment about education wasn't even specifically aimed at you...you weren't the only one who said something, seemingly brushing off education in lieu of canvassing, which is why I didn't quote you in my original statement.

enhanced_deficit

11-05-2013, 12:41 PM

I have heard of party with name "Liberty Party" for a while but almost everything I have learnt about Libertarian principles and their application to US domestic/foreign policies is attributed to Ron Paul and his supporters. I would support anyone Ron Paul supports, any purity tests stop there. Consider it "gratitude blowback" for all he has done for America so far. He is one of handful people in US politics I respect.. and he tops that list by a mile.

Antischism

11-05-2013, 12:58 PM

Bastiat's The Law

11-05-2013, 01:05 PM

angelatc

11-05-2013, 01:11 PM

Cuccinelli is head and shoulders better than the other two. He is not perfect. Those of you who insist on nitpicking a candidate with no alternative in the election are counterproductive. You will never find a candidate that you agree with 100% unless you yourself are that candidate.

This is why courting the Libertarian vote is a losing proposition. They can't even field candidates that pass their endless purity tests, and seem to take great pride in being nothing more than a noise machine for the Democrats.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 01:12 PM

This is why courting the Libertarian vote is a losing proposition. They can't even field candidates that pass their endless purity tests, and seem to take great pride in being nothing more than a noise machine for the Democrats.

Of course. If you're not for Republicans then you MUST be for Democrats. Two-party paradigm alive and well on RPF.

angelatc

11-05-2013, 01:13 PM

Let's not forget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_of_Virginia's_climate_science_inv estigation) how fiscally conservative and pro-science Cuccinelli is. In fact, he's so fiscally conservative and pro-science, that he wasted state resources/money on a witch hunt harassing a climate scientist in Virginia.

Like this! Pro-death climate change worshippers who never have anything positive to say about the GOP or any candidates, really. They aren't interested in politics aside from bitching about politicians.

Granpa, is that you?

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 01:15 PM

Of course. If you're not for Republicans then you MUST be for Democrats. Two-party paradigm alive and well on RPF.

Either the Republican or Democrat will win. Take your pick.

PS: Just for reference, Ron Paul was elected as a Republican.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 01:18 PM

Either the Republican or Democrat will win. Take your pick.

PS: Just for reference, Ron Paul was elected as a Republican.
Yes, we're all aware that Ron Paul was elected as a Republican. That doesn't mean I will follow Ron Paul into the gates of hell if that's where he's going, nor does it mean I will vote for any and/or all Republicans just so I can feel good about defeating Democrats (as if there is any difference in most cases).

TaftFan

11-05-2013, 01:18 PM

Lot's of people who support strict limited government don't necessarily believe in nullification. Not a deal breaker for me if their heart is in the right place.

I have a feeling this huge opposition to Cuccinelli from libertarians is either because people hate success or don't like vocal Christians, I can't figure out which yet. The opposition is almost on Lindsey Graham level at this point.

Bastiat's The Law

11-05-2013, 01:20 PM

angelatc

11-05-2013, 01:22 PM

The point is that we get it! Some of you don't like Cucinelli. But there's no reason to keep posting the same talking points day after day to try to keep people from voting for him.

If you don't like him, state your case (which all you did a month ago) then move on. You don't serve some greater good by hanging around carping on the same guy all the time. Don't volunteer for him, don't send him money - whatever.

But don't be evil.

enhanced_deficit

11-05-2013, 01:22 PM

Either the Republican or Democrat will win. Take your pick.

PS: Just for reference, Ron Paul was elected as a Republican.

That seems bit simplistic, R & D labels alone have become almost non-differentiable in many cases. Ron Paul for the longest time was a lone voice among R's and on civil liberties/wars, you'll often find more D's agreeing with him than R's. But with new breed of Ron Paul leaning Republicans coming up, dynamic and power play is shifting.. but supporting a Ron Paul endorsed Republican is very different from anyone with just R label imo.

fisharmor

11-05-2013, 01:24 PM

For you, in Cuccinelli's case, it's all about sodomy.
Dude, come on. The rest of these clowns I understand, but I expect better from you.

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 01:26 PM

You are obcessed with sodomy and Freak lifestyles.(And yes freak is the word for it. Look up a freak of nature.). Nothing else matters as much. Massive war, obamacare, gun rights, private property rights, killing children, etc. just don't touch sodomy.
I'm pretty sure a lot of men on this board probably dont consider oral sex as freakish.

Bastiat's The Law

11-05-2013, 01:28 PM

Mike Bloomberg's PAC has spent 8 million dollars in the race. The Chamber of Commerce is hostile to Ken Cuccinelli as well. That is all you need to know.

Just goes to show how much of a proxy war this is between authoritarians and individualists/libertarians/small government types. Ron spelled it out in his stump speech for Cuccinelli. The authoritarians want this victory desperately to put another nail into the coffin of liberty.

fisharmor

11-05-2013, 01:29 PM

I have a feeling this huge opposition to Cuccinelli from libertarians is either because people hate success or don't like vocal Christians, I can't figure out which yet. The opposition is almost on Lindsey Graham level at this point.

I'm not a libertarian, I go to church twice a week, and I didn't vote for Cooch.

You guys can feel and guess and even surmise all you want: it's a free country.
We've explained AD NAUSEUM at this point what the material problems are, and you guys just don't want to hear it.

Say what you want about McCauliffe. He at least had the good sense not to brag about how many new felons he was going to create and how many lives he was going to unnecessarily ruin. (ETA no I did not vote for him, either. Just sayin'.)

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 01:31 PM

Dude, come on. The rest of these clowns I understand, but I expect better from you.

That's the only thing you're attacking Ken Cuccinelli on. Somehow the sodomy law issue is more important than fighting Obamacare and fighting higher taxes.

Bastiat's The Law

11-05-2013, 01:32 PM

Sorry, I can't justify deception as a tactic. I don't think we'll seriously gain anything if we play the game that way either.

Read your Sun Tzu.

Todd

11-05-2013, 01:33 PM

I'm still trying to figure out why GOA is blowing up my inbox for the guy if he's a holy traitor?

A vote for the Cuccinelli-Jackson ticket is a vote AGAINST New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s attempt to jump start gun control in Virginia and across the nation.

Let’s face it, if Cuccinelli loses, life in Virginia will be a political hell.

So please make sure you vote, and that you take your pro-gun family and friends with you as well.

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim Macy Gun Owners of America

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 01:33 PM

It's not about sodomy. It's about someone who thinks legislating what goes on in people's bedrooms is okay.

Bastiat's The Law

11-05-2013, 01:35 PM

fisharmor

11-05-2013, 01:36 PM

That's the only thing you're attacking Ken Cuccinelli on. Somehow the sodomy law issue is more important than fighting Obamacare and fighting higher taxes.

Seriously? You seriously can't wrap your head around the fact that we are taking exception to him using that law to ruin people's lives when he didn't have proof of anything else?

I don't care whether it was a law outlawing cake walks. He was using a ridiculous law to convict fellow citizens of the commonwealth. He had the opportunity to do away with the law. Doing so would have shown us that he sees the law as something other than a club to beat his lessers with.

Let me ask you a question, and I'm being serious - did you vote for Romney?

TaftFan

11-05-2013, 01:36 PM

I'm not a libertarian, I go to church twice a week, and I didn't vote for Cooch.

You guys can feel and guess and even surmise all you want: it's a free country.
We've explained AD NAUSEUM at this point what the material problems are, and you guys just don't want to hear it.

Say what you want about McCauliffe. He at least had the good sense not to brag about how many new felons he was going to create and how many lives he was going to unnecessarily ruin. (ETA no I did not vote for him, either. Just sayin'.)

I don't have a problem with locking of criminals personally.

Ken stated last night that he had freed more wrongly-convicted people than any AG in history. Whether that was in the U.S. or VA that is still impressive.

phill4paul

11-05-2013, 01:39 PM

This is why courting the Libertarian vote is a losing proposition. They can't even field candidates that pass their endless purity tests, and seem to take great pride in being nothing more than a noise machine for the Democrats.

Not true angelatc. Opposing those in the GOP that I son't see as a liberty candidate /= pro-Dem.

The point is that we get it! Some of you don't like Cucinelli. But there's no reason to keep posting the same talking points day after day to try to keep people from voting for him.

If you don't like him, state your case (which all you did a month ago) then move on. You don't serve some greater good by hanging around carping on the same guy all the time. Don't volunteer for him, don't send him money - whatever.

But don't be evil.

Which is fine and good and it could work the same way for those that support Cuccinelle. But we both know that is not the way it works on RPF. ;)

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 01:41 PM

Seriously? You seriously can't wrap your head around the fact that we are taking exception to him using that law to ruin people's lives when he didn't have proof of anything else?

I don't care whether it was a law outlawing cake walks. He was using a ridiculous law to convict fellow citizens of the commonwealth. He had the opportunity to do away with the law. Doing so would have shown us that he sees the law as something other than a club to beat his lessers with.

Let me ask you a question, and I'm being serious - did you vote for Romney?

I stand with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul to Virginians: 'Insane' to Vote for 'Libertarian' Robert Sarvis
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/04/Ron-Paul-to-Virginians-Insane-to-Vote-for-Libertarian-Robert-Sarvis

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 01:43 PM

I'm pretty sure a lot of men on this board probably dont consider oral sex as freakish.

I dunno....a lot of them kinda remind me of Rick Santorum at times.

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 01:44 PM

I love how everyone uses Ron Paul when he is for something they approve of, but when we use him as a standard for Rand to live up to on certain matters like foreign policy, he's irrelevant.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 01:46 PM

It's not about sodomy. It's about someone who thinks legislating what goes on in people's bedrooms is okay.

Yes, but more than that...it's about someone who manipulated a (sodomy) law to get a conviction for someone who otherwise didn't commit a crime! In that light, it doesn't matter if it was an open container law, or a drug law, or a seat belt law....it was a manipulation to put someone away when THEY DIDN'T OTHERWISE COMMIT A CRIME!!

Why is everyone on this board OK with that??

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 01:46 PM

I love how everyone uses Ron Paul when he is for something they approve of, but when we use him as a standard for Rand to live up to on certain matters like foreign policy, he's irrelevant.Yep, you noticed that too, huh?

Bastiat's The Law

11-05-2013, 01:47 PM

Are you involved in your local politics scene at all?

Because I guarantee there is SOMEONE in your state that you can work for if you search them out.

That's what the FACL class teaches in their one day class.

I'm lucky in that I helped get a liberty candidate elected to a local council and I am represented by a really good state rep and state senator. As I work for them, others in the party see me working and trust me, get to know me and we discuss (ie: EDUCATE) important issues. They like me, even if they don't always agree with me.

It's not sexy, but it works and that's how you begin to change things.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 01:47 PM

It's not sexy, but it works and that's how you begin to change things.

Asked and answered. But that doesn't change the point of this thread.

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 01:48 PM

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 01:49 PM

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are on the same team, just different strategies. Are you start attacking Rand Paul now?

Nice dodge.

Bastiat's The Law

11-05-2013, 01:51 PM

Ron sees value in supporting Cuccinelli over Terry McAuliffe.

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/11/04/131104_ron_paul_ken_cuccinelli_ap_605.jpg

FrankRep

11-05-2013, 01:53 PM

Nice dodge.

Just clarifying the situation.

jkob

11-05-2013, 01:57 PM

McAuliffe will be a disaster.

Dr.3D

11-05-2013, 01:58 PM

Ron sees value in supporting Cuccinelli over Terry McAuliffe.

http://images.politico.com/global/2013/11/04/131104_ron_paul_ken_cuccinelli_ap_605.jpg

Perhaps it's because he realizes there is a time to support the lesser of two evils.

When it is obvious one politician leans the opposite direction from liberty and the other leans closer to liberty, it would seem obvious one would support the latter.

AuH20

11-05-2013, 01:59 PM

Just goes to show how much of a proxy war this is between authoritarians and individualists/libertarians/small government types. Ron spelled it out in his stump speech for Cuccinelli. The authoritarians want this victory desperately to put another nail into the coffin of liberty.

Some people can't see the trees. This is full frontal attack on Cuccinelli from both parties.

The GOP Crony Capitalists don't like him. I'd vote him twice for this article alone!
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/ken-cuccinelli-ripped-by-business-leaders-88034.html

fisharmor

11-05-2013, 02:01 PM

I don't have a problem with locking of criminals personally.
And you apparently don't have a problem, either, with the state finding reasons to lock people up when that little problem called "total lack of proof" rears its head.

Ken stated last night that he had freed more wrongly-convicted people than any AG in history. Whether that was in the U.S. or VA that is still impressive.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2013/09/04/cuccinelli-ad-i-fought-to-free-a-wrongly-convicted-man/

I suppose that it's true that 1 > 0, so he's probably right.

Is there anyone else besides this guy?

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 02:08 PM

Just clarifying the situation.
You've clarified nothing. No one has attacked Rand.

RM918

11-05-2013, 02:32 PM

The '08 and '12 election seasons were all it took to convince me that voting is a rigged game in favor of the two party system and nothing's going to change that. I can only ever see myself voting if it's going to advance my beliefs in one way or another, even if it's just a bit, or not voting at all because the system is illegitimate. I'm not going to lampoon or insult anyone for taking either stance, I can understand either.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 02:35 PM

Seriously? You seriously can't wrap your head around the fact that we are taking exception to him using that law to ruin people's lives when he didn't have proof of anything else?

I completely understand that, and completely agree.

I just don't see why that has to be the deciding issue.

Brian4Liberty

11-05-2013, 02:38 PM

Obviously, discussing the pros and cons of candidates is very popular. Doing it the day of an election is a bit late though.

Why not get ahead of the curve? We have a new section (sub-forum) dedicated to vetting candidates. Check it out! Be sure to read the top two stickied threads before getting started. Now is the time to vet next year's candidates.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?343-Liberty-Campaign-Evaluation

erowe1

11-05-2013, 02:41 PM

I didn't really care about this race, and don't really have a rational reason for caring about it today.

I think I'm having flashbacks to the Hostettler senate race in Indiana. I see a lot of similarity between Hostettler and Cuccinelli, and the same kinds of criticisms coming up.

Bastiat's The Law

11-05-2013, 02:45 PM

Perhaps it's because he realizes there is a time to support the lesser of two evils.

When it is obvious one politician leans the opposite direction from liberty and the other leans closer to liberty, it would seem obvious one would support the latter.

I don't even see him as really evil. Cuccinelli would likely be the most liberty orientated Governor in the country. And besides, he's just a first step. If he's victorious we'll have even more and better liberty people running for high-profile Governorships in the future. But first we have to establish a beachhead of liberty and Virginia is a great place to start.

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 02:45 PM

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are on the same team, just different strategies. Are you start attacking Rand Paul now?

Where did I attack him? I was referring to tactics used by some members of this forum.

Dr.3D

11-05-2013, 02:51 PM

I don't even see him as really evil. Cuccinelli would likely be the most liberty orientated Governor in the country. And besides, he's just a first step. If he's victorious we'll have even more and better liberty people running for high-profile Governorships in the future. But first we have to establish a beachhead of liberty and Virginia is a great place to start.
I don't see him as evil either, but to humor those who have a purity complex, I said that as a way of expressing how it is necessary to vote for what we have, not what we would find as being perfect.

Bastiat's The Law

11-05-2013, 03:01 PM

I see Cuccinelli and the Virginia Gubernatorial race as a beachhead to get other liberty forces in the fight against the authoritarians.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/d00001/d02517.jpg

pcosmar

11-05-2013, 03:26 PM

I see Cuccinelli and the Virginia Gubernatorial race as a beachhead to get other liberty forces in the fight against the authoritarians.

:confused:

State Attorney General..
The guy is Pro Authoritarian.

A professional Authoritarian.

phill4paul

11-05-2013, 03:30 PM

:confused:

State Attorney General..
The guy is Pro Authoritarian.

A professional Authoritarian.

Damn straight. That's why I could never vote for him.

Brian4Liberty

11-05-2013, 03:37 PM

:confused:

State Attorney General..
The guy is Pro Authoritarian.

A professional Authoritarian.

That is a valid concern.

But his opponent (McAuliffe) would probably be much worse. A corrupt, crony-corporatist, Clinton-Obama style Big Mommy authoritarian.

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 03:46 PM

Read your Sun Tzu.

I'll stick with my Bible.

It's not about sodomy. It's about someone who thinks legislating what goes on in people's bedrooms is okay.

Its not even that for me. If Cuccinelli was a rock solid liberty candidate on everything but sodomy I'd probably support him. Its more because he wants this law FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING ABLE TO ARREST PEOPLE THAT HE COULDN'T OTHERWISE.

I'd probably vote for a legit theonomist.

Progressives control the education system. The only way to by-pass that and educate the masses is getting liberty candidates elected so they have a bully-pulpit.

Which only works if the candidates actually, you know, stick to their principles. A guy who supports arresting people who he can't convict of anything isn't one of them.

Seriously? You seriously can't wrap your head around the fact that we are taking exception to him using that law to ruin people's lives when he didn't have proof of anything else?

I don't care whether it was a law outlawing cake walks. He was using a ridiculous law to convict fellow citizens of the commonwealth. He had the opportunity to do away with the law. Doing so would have shown us that he sees the law as something other than a club to beat his lessers with.

Exactly.

If it just so happened that he had a moral conviction that sodomy should be illegal for some reason, and he was solid on the rest of the issues, I'd probably vote for him. But that's not the case here.

Let me ask you a question, and I'm being serious - did you vote for Romney?

Rand endorsed him, so obviously you hate Rand if you didn't:rolleyes:

In all seriousness though, most of these people probably did. I know erowe1 didn't, but the rest of the Cooch defenders here probably did.

I dunno....a lot of them kinda remind me of Rick Santorum at times.

LOL!

I love how everyone uses Ron Paul when he is for something they approve of, but when we use him as a standard for Rand to live up to on certain matters like foreign policy, he's irrelevant.

lol, yes.

Yes, but more than that...it's about someone who manipulated a (sodomy) law to get a conviction for someone who otherwise didn't commit a crime! In that light, it doesn't matter if it was an open container law, or a drug law, or a seat belt law....it was a manipulation to put someone away when THEY DIDN'T OTHERWISE COMMIT A CRIME!!

Why is everyone on this board OK with that??

Not everyone, Cajun. Stand strong.

I have heard of party with name "Liberty Party" for a while but almost everything I have learnt about Libertarian principles and their application to US domestic/foreign policies is attributed to Ron Paul and his supporters. I would support anyone Ron Paul supports, any purity tests stop there. Consider it "gratitude blowback" for all he has done for America so far. He is one of handful people in US politics I respect.. and he tops that list by a mile.

Ron Paul has endorsed some really, really crappy people at times. That isn't his strong point.

Either the Republican or Democrat will win. Take your pick.

Wow, you sound like a typical red-state fascist. You're just like those people that accused me of "Demanding perfection" when I said I wouldn't vote for Romney because he supported NDAA 2012. Quit being stupid.

PS: Just for reference, Ron Paul was elected as a Republican.

Point? I don't care at all what party someone is elected in.

Lot's of people who support strict limited government don't necessarily believe in nullification. Not a deal breaker for me if their heart is in the right place.

Because they're Hamiltonians, that's why. I want nothing to do with them. Then again, I've ruled you out as a plant a long time ago.

I have a feeling this huge opposition to Cuccinelli from libertarians is either because people hate success or don't like vocal Christians, I can't figure out which yet. The opposition is almost on Lindsey Graham level at this point.

You should read the religion subforum sometime. I get attacked by other confessing Christians because of how vocal I am about my Christianity. There was literally one poster who eclipsed me in terms of how often and how loudly he proclaimed Christianity, and he's gone now.

It certainly isn't because I have a problem with Christians.

And, I definitely want to win.

So, you are wrong again.

pcosmar

11-05-2013, 03:47 PM

That is a valid concern.

But his opponent (McAuliffe) would probably be much worse. A corrupt, crony-corporatist, Clinton-Obama style Big Mommy authoritarian.

There is no significant difference Between "R" and "D". The same people run and direct both parties.. it does not friggin' matter.

We are headed to a full police State and Martial Law. Both parties are pushing that.

The sooner it gets here the better..

belian78

11-05-2013, 05:37 PM

I stand with Ron Paul.

Ron Paul to Virginians: 'Insane' to Vote for 'Libertarian' Robert Sarvis
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/04/Ron-Paul-to-Virginians-Insane-to-Vote-for-Libertarian-Robert-Sarvis
You are a frickin weasel, and in only 'stand with RP' when it suites you. You had no problem throwing Ron under the bus, beating us over the head with his vote right after 9/11, when defending Rand's warmongering statements and votes supporting acts of war. The same as the others calling Cajun and Carly ignorant/operatives/trolls in this thread, they had no problem throwing Ron under the bus and muddying his good name, yet here they are claiming they 'stand with Ron'. You people make me sick.

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 05:44 PM

You are a frickin weasel, and in only 'stand with RP' when it suites you. You had no problem throwing Ron under the bus, beating us over the head with his vote right after 9/11, when defending Rand's warmongering statements and votes supporting acts of war. The same as the others calling Cajun and Carly ignorant/operatives/trolls in this thread, they had no problem throwing Ron under the bus and muddying his good name, yet here they are claiming they 'stand with Ron'. You people make me sick.

I think calling Rand "Warmongerer" is a little unfair. He's a little friendlier toward Israel than I care for, and WAY too friendly to the military ("Fighting for our freedoms? Are you kidding me? I mean, I know why he does it, but the cognitive dissonance has to get to him after awhile, he knows better. Ron may not actively take shots at the military but at least he doesn't proclaim BS).

But "Warmongerer"? I think that's crossing the line a little bit. I think Rand is trying to avoid an outright war, even if he does have more of an "Appease the GOP" and "Peace through military strength (rather than a strong militia, which would be ideal)" strategy for doing so than I personally would prefer.

Carlybee

11-05-2013, 05:58 PM

Bottom line...we have 3 pieces of poop. You get to choose the least smelly. It's probably subjective. "Murica.

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 06:12 PM

I think calling Rand "Warmongerer" is a little unfair. He's a little friendlier toward Israel than I care for, and WAY too friendly to the military ("Fighting for our freedoms? Are you kidding me? I mean, I know why he does it, but the cognitive dissonance has to get to him after awhile, he knows better. Ron may not actively take shots at the military but at least he doesn't proclaim BS).

But "Warmongerer"? I think that's crossing the line a little bit. I think Rand is trying to avoid an outright war, even if he does have more of an "Appease the GOP" and "Peace through military strength (rather than a strong militia, which would be ideal)" strategy for doing so than I personally would prefer.

To be fair, belian didn't call Rand a warmonger; he referred to "warmongering statements" that were made by Rand. There's a difference.

RDM

11-05-2013, 08:14 PM

I kind of liked Newt on some things. He was right about some of the more relevant things to our nation's prosperity that is less discussed.

...and which ones were that? Any below?

05/04/1979 - He voted for a federal land grab (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-107) that put tens of millions of acres of land in the hands of Washington bureaucrats.
09/20/1979 - He voted to raise the debt ceiling (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-449) for the first time.
09/27/1979 - He voted to establish the Federal Department of Education (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-468).
06/04/1980 - He voted to raise the debt ceiling (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1980-936) for the second time.
02/05/1981 - He voted to raise the debt ceiling (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1981-7) for the third time.
06/28/1984 - He voted to raise the debt ceiling (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1984-754) for the fourth time.
04/02/1987 - He cosponsored the 1987 Fairness Doctrine (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/29/newt-gingrich-co-sponsored-the-1987-pro-fairness-doctrine-bill/) (anti 1st Amendment legislation)
02/22/1989 - He cosponsored the Global Warming Prevention Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d101:H.R.1078:) of 1989.
03/--/1993 - He was "passionately in favor" of sending $1.6 Billion in foreign aid to Russia (http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/My_Life_Foreign_Policy.htm).
11/19/1993 - He voted for the NAFTA Implementation Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1993-575).
11/27/1994 - He supported the GATT (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19941127&slug=1943982) Treaty giving sovereignty to the U.N.
04/10/1995 - He supported Federal taxdollars being spent on abortions (http://articles.sfgate.com/1995-04-10/news/17801484_1_poor-women-school-prayer-anti-abortion-lawmakers).
06/--/1995 - He wrote the foreword to a book (http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=69) about tearing down the U.S. Constitution and implementing a Fascist World Government.
08/27/1995 - He suggests that drug smuggling should carry a death sentence (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/27/us/gingrich-suggests-tough-drug-measure.html).
01/06/1996 - He himself conceived a secret CIA mission (http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/26/world/us-plan-to-change-iran-leaders-is-an-open-secret-before-it-begins.html?src=pm) to topple the Iranian leadership.
04/18/1996 - He voted for Federal restrictions on laser sighting (http://gunowners.org/gingrich-mixed-record.htm) devices.
04/25/1996 - Voted for the single largest increase on Federal education (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll135.xml) spending ($3.5 Billion)
06/01/1996 - He helped a "Clinton Clone" Democrat (http://www.ninomiya.org/libertarian/ronpaul_vs_laughlin.html) switch parties in an attempt to defeat constitutionalist Ron Paul in the 1996 election (http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/newt-gingrich-tried-to-prevent-ron-paul-s-1996-return-to-congress).
09/16/1996 - He voted for the anti-gun Brady Campaign’s Lautenberg Gun Ban (http://www.nationalgunrights.org/the-inconvenient-truth-about-newt/), which took away gun rights for people involved in certain misdemeanors.
09/25/1996 - Introduced H.R. 4170 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h104-4170), demanded life-sentence or execution for someone bringing 2 ounces of marijuana across the border.
09/28/1996 - He voted for the "Gun Free School Zones Act" (http://gunowners.org/gingrich-mixed-record.htm) which resulted in schools being easier targets for shooters, and disarming law-abiding citizens.
--/--/1996 - He earned a "D" rating (http://gunowners.org/gingrich-mixed-record.htm) from the Gun Owners of America.
01/22/1997 - Congress gave him a record-setting $300,000 fine for ethical wrongdoing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/012297.htm).
11/05/1998 - He resigned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Resignation) from his House seat three days after being elected to his 11th term.
10/13/2005 - He called for "universal but confidential" DNA testing (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QociAAAAIBAJ&sjid=eKoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4472,6114172&dq=gingrich&hl=en) of citizens.
11/29/2006 - He said that free speech should be curtailed (http://www.nysun.com/national/gingrich-free-speech-should-be-curtailed-to-fight/44302/) in order to fight terrorism. Wants to stop terrorists from using the internet. Called for a "serious debate about the 1st Amendment."
11/29/2006 - He called for a "Geneva Convention for terrorists (http://www.nysun.com/national/gingrich-free-speech-should-be-curtailed-to-fight/44302/)" so it would be clear who the Constitution need not apply to.
02/15/2007 - He supported Bush's proposal for mandatory carbon caps (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/gingrich.html).
04/04/2007 - He says that there should be a clear distinction about what weapons should be reserved for only for the military (http://publicola.mu.nu/archives/2007/04/04/newt_doesnt_get_it.html).
04/11/2007 - He had a public debate with John Kerry on global warming (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001457.html), in which Newt agreed with Kerry and his views on the environment, praised his book, and almost hugged him.
04/20/2007 - He praised NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (http://www.nysun.com/new-york/gingrich-ford-laud-bloombergs-leadership/52936/); said that he "takes his hat off to the mayor for proving government can be effective."
04/24/2007 - He praised the corporatist business-model of Freddie Mac (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-01/freddie-mac-efficiency-could-put-man-on-mars-gingrich-once-said.html), saying it would be effective for space travel to Mars.
04/24/2007 - He said about Government-Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) (http://web.archive.org/web/20080909224217/http://www.freddiemac.com/corporate/about/policy/policytalk_gingrich_42407.html): "conservatives should embrace [them] and want to extend as widely as possible."
05/20/2007 - He would bypass the court system (http://quiz.ontheissues.org/Archive/2008_Meet_the_Press_Newt_Gingrich.htm) by establishing a "military tribunal system to lock people up the way Abraham Lincoln would’ve done it."
05/20/2007 - He would "establish a nationwide ID card (http://quiz.ontheissues.org/Archive/2008_Meet_the_Press_Newt_Gingrich.htm) with biometrics so you can actually track everybody in the country."
04/17/2008 - Made a commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154) with Nancy Pelosi on Climate Change.
04/28/2008 - He said that allow some terror (http://dcdecoder.com/post/13347058788/eltigrechico-newt-we-should-allow-some-terror) to happen, to keep the people afraid.
04/28/2008 - He wants yet another new Federal agency (http://dcdecoder.com/post/13347058788/eltigrechico-newt-we-should-allow-some-terror) to be "very aggressive" against "terrorists" and have "extraordinary abilities" that are not restricted by the constitution.
09/28/2008 - Says if he were in office, he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJb2NfqwghY&feature=player_embedded) bailout.
09/28/2008 - He says that McCain's vote for TARP (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/09/24/troublemaker.html) bailouts "is the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate".
12/08/2008 - He was paid $300,000 by Freddie Mac (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28108013/How_Freddie_Mac_Splashed_Cash_to_Halt_Regulation) to halt Congress from bringing necessary reform.
03/31/2009 - Says we should have Singapore-style drug tests (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/gingrich-we-should-have-singapore-st) for Americans.
10/16/2009 - He angered conservatives by endorsing (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/10/16/an-acorn-friendly-big-labor-backing-tax-and-spend-radical-in-gop-clothing/) super liberal Dede Scozzafava.
06/10/2010 - He's cozy with VeriChip/PositiveID, a company that specializes in human-microchipping (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42844913/does-newt-gingrich-favor-microchipping-alzheimers-patients-his-sponsor-sure-does/).
07/30/2010 - Says that Iraq was just step one in defeating the "Axis of Evil" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/newt-gingrich-suggests-at_n_665063.html).
08/03/2010 - Advocates attacks (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4203-gingrich-wants-attacks-on-iran-north-korea) on Iran & North Korea.
08/16/2010 - Opposes property rights of the mosque (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/07/21/newt-gingrich-no-ground-zero-mosque-until-saudis-allow-churches/) owner in NYC.
08/16/2010 - Compares mosque supporters to Nazis (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/newt-gingrich-compares-ground.html)
12/05/2010 - He said that a website owner should be considered an enemy combatant (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/05/gingrich-assange-enemy-combatant/), hunted down and executed, for publishing leaked government memos.
01/30/2011 - He lobbied for ethanol subsidies (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104682930044012.html).
01/30/2011 - He suggested that flex-fuel (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704698004576104682930044012.html?m od=googlenews_wsj) vehicles be mandated for Americans.
02/02/2011 - He says we are "losing the War on Terror"; the conflict will be as long as the Cold War (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/newt-gingrich-we-are-losing-the-war-on-terror.php)
02/13/2011 - He criticized Obama for sending less U.S. taxdollars to Egypt (http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-revolution-egypt/story?id=12905449&page=4#.TsCXdnJIlUQ).
02/15/2011 - His book said that he believes man-made climate-change (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/reviews/books/6323-newts-contract-with-the-earth-offers-pseudo-science-big-government-and-earth-worship) and advocated creating "a new endowment for conservation and the environment."
03/09/2011 - He blames his infidelity to multiple wives on his passion for the country (http://spectator.org/blog/2011/03/09/newt-too-patriotic-to-be-faith).
03/15/2011 - Says that NAFTA (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/15/150658/gingrich-nafta-mexico-jobs/) worked because it created jobs in Mexico.
03/19/2011 - He has no regrets about supporting Medicare drug coverage (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/6754-gingrich-no-regrets-for-supporting-medicare-drug-coverage). (Now $7.2T unfunded liability)
03/23/2011 - He completely flip-flopped on Libyan intervention (http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/weigel/2011/03/23/newt_gingrich_completely_changes_position_on_libya _in_16_days.html) in 16 days.
03/25/2011 - He plans to sign as many as 200 executive orders (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51953.html) on his first day as president.
03/27/2011 - He says that America is under attack by atheist Islamists (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52023.html).
04/25/2011 - He's a paid lobbyist (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53678.html) for Federal ethanol subsidies.
05/12/2011 - He was more supportive of individual health-care mandates (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/newt-gingrich-individual-mandate-romney_n_861017.html) than Mitt Romney.
05/15/2011 - Said GOP's plan to cut back Medicare (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/15/newt-gingrich-paul-ryan-medicare_n_862133.html) was "too big a jump."
05/15/2011 - He backed Obama's individual mandate (http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/05/15/newt-shocks-conservatives); "All of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care."
05/16/2011 - He also endorsed individual mandates in 1993 (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/gingrich-focus-on-my-1993-mandate-support-is-political-amnesia-video.php) when Clinton pushed Universal Health Care.
05/17/2011 - He has an outstanding debt to Tiffany's Jewelry (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55125.html) of between $250K - $500K.
06/09/2011 - His own campaign staff resigned (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/09/sources-gingrich-aides-resign-en-masse-from-campaign/) en masse.
07/15/2011 - His poorly managed campaign is over $1 Million in debt (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/15/gingrich_campaign_over_1m_in_debt_110593.html).
08/01/2011 - He hired a company to create fake Twitter (http://gawker.com/5826645/most-of-newt-gingrichs-twitter-followers-are-fake) to appear as if he had a following.
08/11/2011 - His recent criticism of the United Nations (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/11/gingrich_was_for_the_united_nations_before_he_was_ against_it) is belied by a long, long history of supporting it.
09/27/2011 - He says that he "helped develop the model for Homeland Security (http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Newt_Gingrich_Homeland_Security.htm)"
10/07/2011 - He said he'd ignore (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20117504-503544.html) the Supreme Court if need be.
11/12/2011 - He advocates assassinating (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/newt-gingrich-advocates-assassinating-iran) Iranian scientists and covert war with Iran.
11/19/2011 - He said Barney Frank should be arrested for his close ties lobbying for Freddie Mac, just one month before it became public that Gingrich was also lobbying (http://www.examiner.com/independent-in-manchester/paul-s-sincerity-vs-gingrich-s-hypocrisy) for them at the same time.
11/20/2011 - He has been outed as a paid lobbyist (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-was-lobbyist-plain-and-simple) for drug companies, but he still denies it.
11/22/2011 - He supports the Patriot Act (http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/11/22/gingrich-and-paul-debate-patriot-act) and would like to see it strengthened.
11/22/2011 - He says that matters of National Security should not be encumbered by giving Due Process (http://nation.foxnews.com/newt-gingrich/2011/11/22/gingrich-and-paul-debate-patriot-act) to the accused.
11/28/2011 - He thinks its the job of the Federal Government to ban medical marijuana (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/163854/newt-gingrich-medical-marijuana-is-a-convenience-that-must-be-stopped/).
11/28/2011 - He is a Pharmaceutical lobbyist (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/newt-gingrich-was-lobbyist-plain-and-simple), and coincidentally thinks that non-Pharma drugs like medical marijuana (http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/163854/newt-gingrich-medical-marijuana-is-a-convenience-that-must-be-stopped/) should be banned by the Federal government.
11/28/2011 - He said he wants to be "aggressive" with Cuba (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newt-gingrich-drug-laws-entitlements-campaigning-yahoo-news-152936251.html) topple their government before 2014.
11/28/2011 - He praised draconian drug penalties (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/29/377716/gingrich-praises-singapores-very-draconian-laws-that-mandate-executions-for-drug-possession/) in Singapore for the second time.
12/01/2011 - His comments about warning Freddie Mac (http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10021-gingrichs-freddie-mac-contradictions-just-got-worse) of its "insane" business model are proven false when his laudatory interview from 2007 surfaced again.
12/08/2011 - He pocketed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-fighting-massive-debt-racked-up-in-campaigns-extravagant-early-days/2011/12/01/gIQAtokzZO_story.html) campaign funds -- including paying himself over $40K for a mailing list he already had.

http://www.notonewt.com/

Voluntarist

11-05-2013, 08:50 PM

xxxxx

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 08:55 PM

Maybe a poll is in order

Maybe so....would be interesting to expose their hypocrisy. Go start one.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 08:55 PM

Maybe a poll is in order

The poll would have to have two parts, one for whether or not it's freaky, and the other for whether or not they're opposed to it. The results of the poll will show that those questions are not redundant.

Voluntarist

11-05-2013, 08:58 PM

xxxxx

cajuncocoa

11-05-2013, 08:59 PM

The poll would have to have two parts, one for whether or not it's freaky, and the other for whether or not they're opposed to it. The results of the poll will show that those questions are not redundant.

You think oral sex is freaky?

TaftFan

11-05-2013, 09:01 PM

Because they're Hamiltonians, that's why. I want nothing to do with them. Then again, I've ruled you out as a plant a long time ago.

Hamiltonians support a "loose" view of the enumerated powers. That is separate from nullification.

Natural Citizen

11-05-2013, 09:02 PM

...and which ones were that? Any below?

Uh-uh. None of those.

RDM

11-05-2013, 09:43 PM

Uh-uh. None of those.

Still did not answer the question....looking for this?
http://www.freakingnews.com/images/app_images/lipstick-1.jpg

Christian Liberty

11-05-2013, 10:11 PM

To be fair, belian didn't call Rand a warmonger; he referred to "warmongering statements" that were made by Rand. There's a difference.

Fair point.

Although, I can't off the top of my head remember any warmongering statements that he's made. Doesn't mean there haven't been any, but I don't really remember them. A lot of crap about Israel and the troops, but I haven't seen him actually trying to provoke war with anybody.

Hamiltonians support a "loose" view of the enumerated powers. That is separate from nullification.

For a state governor it really isn't. If you won't stick up to DC, are you really worth crap? I don't think so.

erowe1

11-05-2013, 10:18 PM

You think oral sex is freaky?

I may or my not. My answer to that would also not determine my answer to the other part I suggested for the proposed poll. That's all I meant.