Ron Paul: Rand is like me but better

[compromise]

https://soundcloud.com/smerconishshow/former-rep-ron-paul-my-son

[compromise]

bump

[EBounding]

Looks like they got to Ron too. /s

But seriously, great clip. Rand is one of the few politicians who deserves the benefit of the doubt. If he gets elected and ends up being what some people feared, then there is really no hope to change the presidency.

[twomp]

Ron Paul, so humble! There's no one better than you Dr. Paul!!!

[Cleaner44]

If we are talking philosophy and policies, Ron is better, if we are talking effectiveness then Rand is better. Rand knows how to communicate to the masses and get them on his side.

[compromise]

There's no one better than you Dr. Paul!!!

I agree, there's no one better than Dr. Rand Paul.

[eduardo89]

Ron Paul just confirmed:

Rand > Ron

[jllundqu]

uh.... no.

I don't see the youthful masses wearing "Rand Paul Cured My Apathy!" shirts just yet....

Jury is still out on Rand. We will see if he is true to his convictions come 2015

[compromise]

uh.... no.

I don't see the youthful masses wearing "Rand Paul Cured My Apathy!" shirts just yet....


You will see them when he's actually running for President.

Already we are seeing enthusiasm among the youth for Rand, it really showed at UNH and Berkeley.

[Christian Liberty]

Ron Paul just confirmed:

Rand > Ron

Ron Paul isn't God. I disagree with Ron Paul's statement.

[georgiaboy]

Sounds like Ron knows who he's endorsing in 2016.

[AuH20]

Rand Paul is the closer of the Paul family. Ron knows it. He may not ultimately win, but he will shake the consciousness of this country in the process. Rand Paul is waking up so many people, who may have been turned off by Ron's blunt professions.

[georgiaboy]

I love the strengths that both men are bringing to the current political scene. It's really great how they can play off one another.

[Czolgosz]

Ron Paul, so humble! There's no one better than you Dr. Paul!!!

+1. Ron is worthy. What a guy.

[KingNothing]

uh.... no.

I don't see the youthful masses wearing "Rand Paul Cured My Apathy!" shirts just yet....

Jury is still out on Rand. We will see if he is true to his convictions come 2015

If he's elected president, we'll be seeing masses of people wearing "Rand Paul Cured My Country" shirts, though.

[KingNothing]

I love the strengths that both men are bringing to the current political scene. It's really great how they can play off one another.

We absolutely need both of them, and men and women like both of them. They play very important roles.

[Guitarzan]

Yeah. Well, this is a subjective comparison for sure. I like both immensely, but it will take Rand a bit more to earn the amount of respect I have for Ron.

As a guitar player, I often compare the two to Hendrix vs Stevie Ray. Who is the better player? Well, first of all, and the most important point is that there would have been no Stevie Ray without Hendrix. Now, to many people, they listen and don't understand Hendrix. He was pure and guttural, raunchy, ugly and beautiful all in one. He was truly one with the guitar and seemed to be an open channel for the music to flow. He was technically sloppy but truthful. He never hit a wrong note, even if he hit a wrong note. No one since has been able to sound or be Hendrix, despite the effort of many. One has to truly listen and study to understand just how good Hendrix was. And many people can't seem to attain that understanding.

On the other hand, Stevie took what Hendrix did and refined it. He was a much smoother, more technical player who incorporated Hendrix's style and message into a more neatly designed package. Stevie could still play like no one, but many will agree in comparison that something was lost. It isn't a devaluation of Stevie, but more of a compliment to Hendrix. He was 'easier on the ears' to many; he could be understood by many more. He might have reached more people in the end...only time will tell. As far as guitar players are concerned, I hear many more that are able to copy and sound like SRV (including myself) than I have ever heard that sound like JH. And I believe it's because SRV was easier and more simplistic for the masses to understand.

So who was better? Who knows! To me, it's Hendrix, but sometimes it might depend on which one I'm listening to at the time! But I'm a rock and roll guitar purist, so I go back to my main point in that there would have been no Stevie without Hendrix. So Hendrix will always have my utmost respect, followed closely by SRV. Now if I play music from each artist to the ordinary person who likes music, the majority will say that Stevie was the better player.

So to me, Ron Paul was the trailblazer, like Hendrix. He burned the path like no other. He will change the course of current political thought, he stood alone with a vision and courage to remain vigilant to his message, despite many obstacles in his way; just as Hendrix changed the guitar and rock and roll forever. Rand, as with SRV brought that message to the masses in a way that they can understand. Unfortunately, as with everything in nature, there is entropy, and something is always lost in that process.

[georgiaboy]

duplicate post

[fisharmor]

You will see them when he's actually running for President.

So a 70 year old woman who was three times widowed met another man and fell in love.
They decided to get married.
On their wedding night, she told him that she was still a virgin.

"What? That's not possible, you're 70 years old!"

"Well", she explained, "my first husband was secretly gay. We kept it to ourselves until the day he died.
"My second husband was a heavy drinker and smoker, and he died the night of our wedding.
"And my third husband.... well, he was a Rand Paul supporter, and all he'd ever do is sit on the edge of the bed and tell me how great it was going to be."

[twomp]

I agree, there's no one better than Dr. Rand Paul.

Lol I was talking about Dr. Ron Paul but Rand Paul is pretty good too! A solid #2 behind his dad.

[KingNothing]

"I dunno, I think Ron knows that Rand is no good but he's so embarrassed by his son he can't come to grips with reality." - people on this board, probably

[Original_Intent]

Rand can deliver the sound byte, which was Ron's Achilles heel. Ron tried to educate boobus, who didn't have the attention span to digest what he was saying.

Jury is still out on Rand. I could see him saving the country. I do see him compromising on things that Ron wouldn't. This both raises concerns but also means that he could be a contendor. Right now I am hoping that they really are "95% in agreement" as Ron says, and that Rand just knows how to chum up with people better.

[KingNothing]

Jury is still out on Rand.


:rolleyes:

In his brief tenure he has literally been the best Senator in American history. Jury is still out, my ass.

[thoughtomator]

:rolleyes:

In his brief tenure he has literally been the best Senator in American history. Jury is still out, my ass.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KingNothing again.

[jllundqu]

If Rand wins the presidency... I hope he taps Ron to be in his administration. I would love Ron Paul to be Fed Chair :)

Ron Paul: "Oh I seemed to have disclosed every minute of every meeting the Fed held for the last 100 years? Oh well. Wait... there is evidence of illegal activity on behalf of the Fed? Well I guess we will have to end it then" ;)

[phill4paul]

Yeah. Well, this is a subjective comparison for sure. I like both immensely, but it will take Rand a bit more to earn the amount of respect I have for Ron.

As a guitar player, I often compare the two to Hendrix vs Stevie Ray. Who is the better player? Well, first of all, and the most important point is that there would have been no Stevie Ray without Hendrix. Now, to many people, they listen and don't understand Hendrix. He was pure and guttural, raunchy, ugly and beautiful all in one. He was truly one with the guitar and seemed to be an open channel for the music to flow. He was technically sloppy but truthful. He never hit a wrong note, even if he hit a wrong note. No one since has been able to sound or be Hendrix, despite the effort of many. One has to truly listen and study to understand just how good Hendrix was. And many people can't seem to attain that understanding.

On the other hand, Stevie took what Hendrix did and refined it. He was a much smoother, more technical player who incorporated Hendrix's style and message into a more neatly designed package. Stevie could still play like no one, but many will agree in comparison that something was lost. It isn't a devaluation of Stevie, but more of a compliment to Hendrix. He was 'easier on the ears' to many; he could be understood by many more. He might have reached more people in the end...only time will tell. As far as guitar players are concerned, I hear many more that are able to copy and sound like SRV (including myself) than I have ever heard that sound like JH. And I believe it's because SRV was easier and more simplistic for the masses to understand.

So who was better? Who knows! To me, it's Hendrix, but sometimes it might depend on which one I'm listening to at the time! But I'm a rock and roll guitar purist, so I go back to my main point in that there would have been no Stevie without Hendrix. So Hendrix will always have my utmost respect, followed closely by SRV. Now if I play music from each artist to the ordinary person who likes music, the majority will say that Stevie was the better player.

So to me, Ron Paul was the trailblazer, like Hendrix. He burned the path like no other. He will change the course of current political thought, he stood alone with a vision and courage to remain vigilant to his message, despite many obstacles in his way; just as Hendrix changed the guitar and rock and roll forever. Rand, as with SRV brought that message to the masses in a way that they can understand. Unfortunately, as with everything in nature, there is entropy, and something is always lost in that process.

One of the best analogies I've ever heard about almost anything. You should refine and write that up. It would make a great piece.

[mczerone]

IMO, without the radical libertarian bonafides, most of the independents and Democrats that could've voted for Ron will simply dismiss Rand.

He's not a typical GOP member, but to most of the uninitiated he's not outside the GOP mold enough to be saying anything different than Christie or Jeb Bush. And, since he's Christian, he might as well be Rick Santorum, too.

People look at politics as a "team" game. Ron gathered support because he explicitly said he was only on the Red team because they offered him a vehicle for his non-team views. Rand comes off as just another team player trying to run slightly different plays.

This analysis could 100% change if Rand wins the GOP primary and breaks the mold for the general election, though. Until then, count me as "unenthused, but supportive."

[compromise]

IMO, without the radical libertarian bonafides, most of the independents and Democrats that could've voted for Ron will simply dismiss Rand.

He's not a typical GOP member, but to most of the uninitiated he's not outside the GOP mold enough to be saying anything different than Christie or Jeb Bush. And, since he's Christian, he might as well be Rick Santorum, too.

People look at politics as a "team" game. Ron gathered support because he explicitly said he was only on the Red team because they offered him a vehicle for his non-team views. Rand comes off as just another team player trying to run slightly different plays.

This analysis could 100% change if Rand wins the GOP primary and breaks the mold for the general election, though. Until then, count me as "unenthused, but supportive."

Roughly 3/4 of Americans identify as Christian. No one is confusing Rand with Santorum.

Rand's minority outreach program has been far more extensive than Ron's and this will help him gain Independents and Democrats come 2016.

There's a Democrat Senate candidate in Maine praising Rand right now. She would have a huge backlash from her supporters if she praised any other Republican. The fact she's so positive towards Rand on civil liberties issues shows that she doesn't see association with Rand as a negative.

[Vanguard101]

Liberty's current Leader/King has spoken :praise:

[Anti Federalist]

Very nicely stated, as a fan of both musicians and political figures, I concur.

Have some + rep...


Yeah. Well, this is a subjective comparison for sure. I like both immensely, but it will take Rand a bit more to earn the amount of respect I have for Ron.

As a guitar player, I often compare the two to Hendrix vs Stevie Ray. Who is the better player? Well, first of all, and the most important point is that there would have been no Stevie Ray without Hendrix. Now, to many people, they listen and don't understand Hendrix. He was pure and guttural, raunchy, ugly and beautiful all in one. He was truly one with the guitar and seemed to be an open channel for the music to flow. He was technically sloppy but truthful. He never hit a wrong note, even if he hit a wrong note. No one since has been able to sound or be Hendrix, despite the effort of many. One has to truly listen and study to understand just how good Hendrix was. And many people can't seem to attain that understanding.

On the other hand, Stevie took what Hendrix did and refined it. He was a much smoother, more technical player who incorporated Hendrix's style and message into a more neatly designed package. Stevie could still play like no one, but many will agree in comparison that something was lost. It isn't a devaluation of Stevie, but more of a compliment to Hendrix. He was 'easier on the ears' to many; he could be understood by many more. He might have reached more people in the end...only time will tell. As far as guitar players are concerned, I hear many more that are able to copy and sound like SRV (including myself) than I have ever heard that sound like JH. And I believe it's because SRV was easier and more simplistic for the masses to understand.

So who was better? Who knows! To me, it's Hendrix, but sometimes it might depend on which one I'm listening to at the time! But I'm a rock and roll guitar purist, so I go back to my main point in that there would have been no Stevie without Hendrix. So Hendrix will always have my utmost respect, followed closely by SRV. Now if I play music from each artist to the ordinary person who likes music, the majority will say that Stevie was the better player.

So to me, Ron Paul was the trailblazer, like Hendrix. He burned the path like no other. He will change the course of current political thought, he stood alone with a vision and courage to remain vigilant to his message, despite many obstacles in his way; just as Hendrix changed the guitar and rock and roll forever. Rand, as with SRV brought that message to the masses in a way that they can understand. Unfortunately, as with everything in nature, there is entropy, and something is always lost in that process.

[69360]

I think they both have done a great service to the country. Why does one have to be better?

[Danke]

Didn't read posts nor article. So sorry if already mentioned. But is this really any surprise? A father proud of his son. Saying son is better than he.

Ron Paul created Rand Paul and Ron Paul was and is the real deal.

[cajuncocoa]

Didn't read posts nor article. So sorry if already mentioned. But is this really any surprise? A father proud of his son. Saying son is better than he.

Ron Paul created Rand Paul and Ron Paul was and is the real deal.
I posted this is the other thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?447810-Ron-Paul-%91My-son-does-everything-better-than-I-have-done-over-the-years%92-What-do-you-say) on the same subject as OP....I'll repost here:



WTF do you expect him to say? He's a Dad talking about his son. I would be disappointed if he didn't say that.

And I would tend to agree if we use effectiveness (i.e., "doing a better job") as a measuring stick, that Rand comes out ahead.

But Ron does a better job at educating people and curing the politically-apathetic.

Both are needed.

[Vanguard101]

I think they both have done a great service to the country. Why does one have to be better?

Rand Paul is a better politician.
Rand Paul can display the message better.

[satchelmcqueen]

ron is better imo. but rand is the closest second ever!!

ron changed my life with just his words. i cannot ever repay him for that. im a bit biased i suppose lol.

[IndianaPolitico]

So the debate can be boiled down to; "Nobody Does it Better" (Then Ron Paul or Rand?)

Let's see who gets the song reference first... :D

[Danke]

So the debate can be boiled down to; "Nobody Does it Better" (Then Ron Paul or Rand?)

Let's see who gets the song reference first... :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNA7DcVppEs

[SilentBull]

Looks like Ron has been fooled by Rand as well :rolleyes:

[cajuncocoa]

Looks like Ron has been fooled by Rand as well :rolleyes:
Ron is being a good Dad.

[Fredom101]

Rand is certainly no Ron. Watered down principles aren't going to save this country.

[Fredom101]

Rand Paul is a better politician.
Rand Paul can display the message better.

The question is, what message?
Liberty is not sanctions.
Liberty is not the war on drugs.
Liberty is not endorsing Romney.

The message is the important thing here, not being political.

[Vanguard101]

The question is, what message?
Liberty is not sanctions.
Liberty is not the war on drugs.
Liberty is not endorsing Romney.

The message is the important thing here, not being political.
Endorsing Romney didn't mean anything at all. Irrelevant. I don't see why people hold that against him. I don't recall Paul ever endorsing the War on Drugs and at least sanctions are better than sending troops on the ground immediately. Not being political has gotten the world nowhere.

[mosquitobite]

Rand is certainly no Ron. Watered down principles aren't going to save this country.

Can't save the country without winning elections.

And if Ron Paul couldn't pull that off, who can? (I mean that seriously)

I can think of a million ways that Rand will correct our path. Will it be as extreme as YOU want? Probably not. Will it be better than anyone who runs and loses... yep.

[cajuncocoa]

Can't save the country without winning elections.

And if Ron Paul couldn't pull that off, who can? (I mean that seriously)

I can think of a million ways that Rand will correct our path. Will it be as extreme as YOU want? Probably not. Will it be better than anyone who runs and loses... yep.
Yes, you can.

The Civil Rights battle wasn't won through the political process. It was won because ordinary citizens made those who were already elected sit up and take notice. The Vietnam war was ended (and along with it, the draft) because young people refused to sit on their ass while their brothers were sent to die in a foreign land for a cause they didn't understand. They made those who were already elected sit up and take notice.

The current generation is too mind-numbed by video games, iPods and cell phones. We need to wake THEM up so they can wake up those who are already elected. Ron Paul sparked a fire in many of them. It's up to us now to keep that fire going.

[mosquitobite]

What's wrong with our country currently will not be won through protests alone. It will only be settled in 1 of 2 ways: revolution or electing new, bold public servants.

The status quo will not change because of protests. The monied elite has too tight of control at this point. It will either be revolution via ballot box or blood.

Ron Paul had the soapbox and still couldn't manage to make real change. Waking people up, alone, has little power to change. It takes people getting up off their asses and DOING something. Ron himself has said this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWJ34YANTYU

[cajuncocoa]

What's wrong with our country currently will not be won through protests. It will only be settled in 1 of 2 ways: revolution or electing new, bold public servants.

The status quo will not change because of protests. The monied elite has too tight of control at this point. It will either be revolution via ballot box or blood.

Ron Paul had the soapbox and still couldn't manage to make real change. Waking people up, alone, has no power to change. It takes people getting up off their asses and DOING something. Ron himself has said this.True, but he didn't limit the course of action we should take to conventional politics alone. I'm quoting my own sig line here....he also valued education and peaceful civil disobedience. IMO, all 3 are necessary components.

[mosquitobite]

True, but he didn't limit the course of action we should take to conventional politics alone. I'm quoting my own sig line here....he also valued education and peaceful civil disobedience. IMO, all 3 are necessary components.

Agree with that as well, but some on here say that Rand Paul doesn't have a part to play because he's not 100% "pure" well that irks me to no end. First, because each person has their own beliefs so the only person truly "pure" to your beliefs is yourself. So if you don't run for office, then don't expect to agree with someone 100%. Period.

If someone chooses the education route, I applaud that, but I hope it expands to areas outside the internet. I hope they aren't just preaching to the choir.

If someone chooses the civil disobedience route, in this current state, I wish them well. The police state and NDAA make it less and less a viable option. Can't educate and force change if they can't hear you while rotting in jail. Exile (Snowden) is another option.

[cajuncocoa]

Agree with that as well, but some on here say that Rand Paul doesn't have a part to play because he's not 100% "pure" well that irks me to no end. First, because each person has their own beliefs so the only person truly "pure" to your beliefs is yourself. So if you don't run for office, then don't expect to agree with someone 100%. Period.

If someone chooses the education route, I applaud that, but I hope it expands to areas outside the internet. I hope they aren't just preaching to the choir.

If someone chooses the civil disobedience route, in this current state, I wish them well. The police state and NDAA make it less and less a viable option. Can't educate and force change if they can't hear you while rotting in jail. Exile (Snowden) is another option.I agree with you on all points as well.

What made me come around on Rand was the realization that, while he may not be 100% pure, he's going to be the purest and most-libertarian president we've seen in this country in my lifetime, if not ever. That's good enough for now.

Of course you can't really educate people on the Internet...most people posting on blogs, message boards, and commenting on articles already have their minds firmly made up (with few exceptions). I try to get people talking about politics as often as I can...at family functions, in the grocery, etc. I may not know if total strangers have had their minds change, but I try to give them something to think about.

As for the protesting in the police state....the young people in the late 60s got arrested for their causes too. You may also have heard about a tragic incident that happened 44 years ago at Kent State University. If there is violence, I hope our side isn't the one who starts it....and of course, I hope all who protest remain safe and sound. That said, a man (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth101378.html) who once led protest, got arrested and imprisoned, and who eventually died for his cause...who we honor with a national holiday each year...once said "A man not willing to die for something is not fit to live". The main difference between then and now is that Boobus is more likely to sympathize with law enforcement these days than with those LEOs are abusing.

[KingNothing]

Ron is being a good Dad.


Yeah, you're right. He probably doesn't really like his son, or wouldn't really like him if Rand weren't his son.

The implication of what you're saying right now is as stupid as most things you say.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, you're right. He probably doesn't really like his son, or wouldn't really like him if Rand weren't his son.

The implication of what you're saying right now is as stupid as most things you say.

Its a little more subtle than that. I like Rand, but I don't love him the way I do Ron, and occasionally I get absolutely ticked at Rand. But, since Ron is Rand's dad he is going to try to avoid criticizing his son, and he's too humble to magnify himself.

[Vanguard101]

Alas a major problem(s) with Libertarianism:
1. Libertarians can't accept the fact that a pure libertarian society will never be achieved
2. Libertarians don't want a candidate who has watered down principles (ironically half the people we praise have watered down principles)
3. Libertarians have yet to realize the notion of government inherently causes libertarian-like candidates to violate libertarian principles.

[cajuncocoa]

Yeah, you're right. He probably doesn't really like his son, or wouldn't really like him if Rand weren't his son.

The implication of what you're saying right now is as stupid as most things you say.


Its a little more subtle than that. I like Rand, but I don't love him the way I do Ron, and occasionally I get absolutely ticked at Rand. But, since Ron is Rand's dad he is going to try to avoid criticizing his son, and he's too humble to magnify himself.
Yes, FF you are right. King(of)Nothing is aptly named....again.

[Cabal]

Alas a major problem(s) with Libertarianism:
1. Libertarians can't accept the fact that a pure libertarian society will never be achieved
2. Libertarians don't want a candidate who has watered down principles (ironically half the people we praise have watered down principles)
3. Libertarians have yet to realize the notion of government inherently causes libertarian-like candidates to violate libertarian principles.

1. Why should we accept that?
2. "Watered down principles" is an oxymoron
3. Replace "government" with "the State"

[cajuncocoa]

Alas a major problem(s) with Libertarianism:
1. Libertarians can't accept the fact that a pure libertarian society will never be achieved
2. Libertarians don't want a candidate who has watered down principles (ironically half the people we praise have watered down principles)
3. Libertarians have yet to realize the notion of government inherently causes libertarian-like candidates to violate libertarian principles.
I don't think it's true to say "can't accept" and "have yet to realize". I, for one, understand those things all too well. But it's an ideal that I strive for anyway, because giving up on it will make sure it never happens.

Re #2....only half?? Nah, I think it's safe to say at least 95% of people we praise have watered down principles. On the national stage, only Ron Paul and (maybe) Justin Amash qualify as mostly pure. IMO.

[Danke]

Yes, FF you are right. King(of)Nothing is aptly named....again.

Always a solution.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

[angelatc]

Yeah, you're right. He probably doesn't really like his son, or wouldn't really like him if Rand weren't his son.

The implication of what you're saying right now is as stupid as most things you say.

This is what they do. Everything Ron Paul says is gospel except when he says something they don't agree with. And then he's somehow being less than honest, and they can accept it, because they understand why.

[Christian Liberty]

Always a solution.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist

Better to tackle the vipers head on than to let them spread nonsense without rebuke.

@Cajun- Is Amash better than Massie? I don't know either THAT well so I may be biased by the fact that SF likes Massie a lot, but I assumed Massie was the best one currently in the House.

All that said, I have to say that ALL of the politicians, including RP, have at least slightly watered down principles, since none of them have advocated completely destroying the State. Of course, I understand why Ron hasn't done so, but still (the "phasing out" of SS is something I don't care for either, though I sometimes present it this way when necessary.)

[Christian Liberty]

This is what they do. Everything Ron Paul says is gospel except when he says something they don't agree with. And then he's somehow being less than honest, and they can accept it, because they understand why.

Ron Paul is wrong about several things. So what?

[cajuncocoa]

Better to tackle the vipers head on than to let them spread nonsense without rebuke.

@Cajun- Is Amash better than Massie? I don't know either THAT well so I may be biased by the fact that SF likes Massie a lot, but I assumed Massie was the best one currently in the House.

All that said, I have to say that ALL of the politicians, including RP, have at least slightly watered down principles, since none of them have advocated completely destroying the State. Of course, I understand why Ron hasn't done so, but still (the "phasing out" of SS is something I don't care for either, though I sometimes present it this way when necessary.)
I like Massie. It was oversight that I failed to mention him.

[cajuncocoa]

This is what they do. Everything Ron Paul says is gospel except when he says something they don't agree with. And then he's somehow being less than honest, and they can accept it, because they understand why.
If you really had me on ignore you wouldn't know what King(of)Nothing is talking about....as usual, you're reading it wrong anyway. I don't disagree with what Ron said. Rand is better than Ron at being effective. Mostly because people at RedState, et al, hear "Ron Paul" and run screaming out of the room for fear they'll never be able to wage a war again. But is Rand better overall than Ron? No, not at all. But Ron would be the last person to say that...hence, he's being a good Dad praising his son without looking for any credit for himself. Maybe you don't like hearing that. I don't care.

[Spikender]

Compromise knew what he was doing when he made this topic in the first place.

Barring that, who is "better" to me is irrelevant. Advancing the cause of liberty is all that matters. Ron Paul is one of my role models because he did a lot to wake people up and get them politically aware. He's always been a fighter and he'll always have my respect. Rand Paul is doing a lot right now too, and he's done more than anyone on this board has to advance liberty. Forgive me if I'm mistaken on that. That doesn't make him beyond criticism, but he does have my thanks for what he has done so far, and he definitely has my support as long as he doesn't betray his professed beliefs.

I say that they both keep up what they're doing, Ron Paul on the education part of things and Rand Paul on the political side of things. They're definitely a monstrous political tag team now for sure.

[Fredom101]

Can't save the country without winning elections.

And if Ron Paul couldn't pull that off, who can? (I mean that seriously)

I can think of a million ways that Rand will correct our path. Will it be as extreme as YOU want? Probably not. Will it be better than anyone who runs and loses... yep.

This is what the liberals said about Obama. "He's not perfect but let's just win the election." Pragmatism fails miserably in the realm of freedom & liberty. Compromising principles is what got us to where we are, with the "let's just win the election" attitude, and going with the lesser of 2 evils. No thanks, not going to fly with me and many other libertarians.

[mosquitobite]

This is what the liberals said about Obama. "He's not perfect but let's just win the election." Pragmatism fails miserably in the realm of freedom & liberty. Compromising principles is what got us to where we are, with the "let's just win the election" attitude, and going with the lesser of 2 evils. No thanks, not going to fly with me and many other libertarians.

You might have a point if Libertarians actually had a chance at winning. You might have a point if the Libertarian party actually put up "pure" candidates. HA!

You can wish for pure all day long, but that requires a massive change of everyone else. I prefer to ride out the sheeple and elect people like Ron Paul and Thomas Massie under the R banner.

[cajuncocoa]

You might have a point if Libertarians actually had a chance at winning. You might have a point if the Libertarian party actually put up "pure" candidates. HA!

You can wish for pure all day long, but that requires a massive change of everyone else. I prefer to ride out the sheeple and elect people like Ron Paul and Thomas Massie under the R banner.
I didn't see where anyone mentioned the Libertarian Party. They have also compromised their principles in the last few presidential elections. As long as they continue down that road, they won't have my vote either.

[angelatc]

This is what the liberals said about Obama. "He's not perfect but let's just win the election." Pragmatism fails miserably in the realm of freedom & liberty. Compromising principles is what got us to where we are, with the "let's just win the election" attitude, and going with the lesser of 2 evils. No thanks, not going to fly with me and many other libertarians.

Fortunately for the vast majority of us, Rand won't be spending any time courting the minuscule libertarian vote.

I am utterly confused why you're holding Obama up as an example of a liberal electoral failure. They got health care, something they've been after for about 100 years.

[Vanguard101]

I didn't see where anyone mentioned the Libertarian Party. They have also compromised their principles in the last few presidential elections. As long as they continue down that road, they won't have my vote either.

So in other words, you just accept the state we are in and will not do anything about it?

[cajuncocoa]

So in other words, you just accept the state we are in and will not do anything about it?
I no longer believe the political process is the only way to bring about change. I will vote for Rand, and if the opportunity presents itself I would vote for Massie and/or Amash. I also donate to their campaigns. But I happen to believe education is far more important. As far as that's concerned, I'm doing all one person can do whenever I come face to face with someone.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Alas a major problem(s) with Libertarianism:
1. Libertarians can't accept the fact that a pure libertarian society will never be achieved
2. Libertarians don't want a candidate who has watered down principles (ironically half the people we praise have watered down principles)
3. Libertarians have yet to realize the notion of government inherently causes libertarian-like candidates to violate libertarian principles.

Number 3 is one of the strongest arguments libertarians can use against the State. And it's something that's been noted for a very long time, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

[Matt Collins]

Jury is still out on Rand. lol... you must not have seen his voting record then :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

IMO, without the radical libertarian bonafides, most of the independents and Democrats that could've voted for Ron will simply dismiss Rand.You must've missed Rand's entire Berkley visit...


He's not a typical GOP member, but to most of the uninitiated he's not outside the GOP mold enough to be saying anything different than Christie or Jeb Bush. And, since he's Christian, he might as well be Rick Santorum, too.lolwut?

When was the last time you heard Christie or Bush slam foreign aid, the NSA, challenge Obama on drones and extrajudicial killings, etc? :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul created Rand Paulliterally :p

[Matt Collins]

The Civil Rights battle wasn't won through the political process.
Of course it was...



http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2013/01/21/when-martin-luther-king-jr-and-richard-nixon-were-friends/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1358782728125.cached.jpg


http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20130803-jfk_mlk.jpg.ece/BINARY/original/jfk_mlk.jpg


http://blog.aarp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/RFK_and_MLK_together.jpg


http://www.haaselectric.com/MLK-JR-LBJ120363-White-House.jpg



Politics determines what the law will be.

[cajuncocoa]

And Rosa Parks' civil disobedience had nothing to do with it, right, Matt? All those lunch counter sit-ins were all for naught. LOL...the politicians were reacting to change they knew they couldn't stop.

[Natural Citizen]

Number 3 is one of the strongest arguments libertarians can use against the State. And it's something that's been noted for a very long time, so I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

Seems like politics, or, to be clear, the American Idolesque transition of politics/political presentation has kind of forced the people (specifically libertarian leaning folks) to devolve and sort of serve as a stalking horse for the state.

Now, when I say state, I mean the deep state. Not the micky mouse stuff that is constantly the nuts and bolts of "the issues" or how we've been trained to observe the state.

Here's a good paper on what the deep state actually is. From Peter Dale Scott. I suppose that we all know who that is.

The State, the Deep State, and the Wall Street Overworld (http://www.japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/4090?utm_source=March+10%2C+2014&utm_campaign=China%27s+Connectivity+Revolution&utm_medium=email)

[Matt Collins]

And Rosa Parks' civil disobedience had nothing to do with it, right, Matt? All those lunch counter sit-ins were all for naught. LOL...the politicians were reacting to change they knew they couldn't stop.
Of course it did, but their goal was to change the political environment so that the law, and enforcement thereof, would be different in the future.

[thoughtomator]

As a guitar player, I often compare the two to Hendrix vs Stevie Ray. Who is the better player?

=-= OFF TOPIC THREAD INTERLUDE =-=


IMHO Stevie Ray Vaughn is the single most overrated guitar player since the instrument was invented - a glorified session player. For someone who gets so many accolades and tips of the hat, he has precious little original, compelling work behind him. Does anyone who isn't a blues guitar player even know any of his stuff?

Mere technical proficiency doesn't do it for me. In music, it's soul that counts. SRV's stuff is all technical grandstanding. Hendrix didn't need to bury you in an incredibly fast series of notes all the time to blow you away.

Just look at what happened to All Along the Watchtower (originally a fairly lame Dylan song) when Hendrix got to it. SRV never transformed anything he touched like that. Hendrix was magic - I can listen to Are You Experienced? over and over again and it never sounds hackneyed or old. I can't listen through a single SRV track before being like "enough already, I get it, you're fast on the guitar and know a lot of licks".

I'm a big blues/blues rock fan and Vaughn bores the hell out of me. Take a guy like Johnny Winter - contemporary with and in the same genre as SRV - and compare him straight up. There's no comparison, Winter wins hands down, a far superior body of work. Vaughn never did anything that was even close to Progressive Blues Experiment. Compare Pride and Joy or Texas Flood (SRV's top two hits) to the first two tracks on PBE.

When you are familiar with the real hardcore blues rock masters, SRV doesn't measure up as anything more than a technician. Look up his "best" solos. They don't stand the test of time, whereas Hendrix's work, and Winter's, and others' do. They're all just a big flurry of notes going too fast to really communicate any meaning, and it doesn't change very much from one track to the next.

To summarize: Hendrix played like he had something to say. SRV played like his goal was to get laid after every concert, and that's about it.

=-= END OFF TOPIC THREAD INTERLUDE =-=

[cajuncocoa]

Of course it did, but their goal was to change the political environment so that the law, and enforcement thereof, would be different in the future.
But they knew they had to bring enough of the general population around to their cause in order for the political change to happen. With very rare exceptions, politicians are not going to be pioneers of a movement. They go where the wind blows.

[Spikender]

Is this the topic that inspired your own topic, thoughtomater?

I don't see any unfair criticism in this topic, simply people questioning Ron's words, and most of it is quite fair, even from the normal vocal Rand critics.

[KingNothing]

This is what the liberals said about Obama. "He's not perfect but let's just win the election." Pragmatism fails miserably in the realm of freedom & liberty. Compromising principles is what got us to where we are, with the "let's just win the election" attitude, and going with the lesser of 2 evils. No thanks, not going to fly with me and many other libertarians.

Obama was never the lesser of two evils. He has never been anything more than a typical conman politician.

[cajuncocoa]

Obama was never the lesser of two evils. He has never been anything more than a typical conman politician.
As were his GOP opponents.

[KingNothing]

As were his GOP opponents.


Romney was the lesser of two evils if for no other reason than his work-experience and intelligence, but was not lesser enough to warrant a vote.

[Cabal]

Romney was the lesser of two evils

Disagree. "The lesser of two evils" is a false dilemma myth perpetuated by partisan politics. Evil is evil, it doesn't come in half-measures. Partisanship is merely a defense mechanism of the State--no matter who you support, in the end they're still Republicrats. Six in one, half-a-dozen of the other.

[twomp]

Romney was the lesser of two evils if for no other reason than his work-experience and intelligence, but was not lesser enough to warrant a vote.

Obama was the lesser of two evils because the other evils were McCain and Romney. Both of whom would have us knee deep in Syrian blood by now had they been President. You just don't think they are as evil because of the letter (R) behind their names.

[KingNothing]

Disagree. "The lesser of two evils" is a false dilemma myth perpetuated by partisan politics. Evil is evil, it doesn't come in half-measures. Partisanship is merely a defense mechanism of the State--no matter who you support, in the end they're still Republicrats. Six in one, half-a-dozen of the other.


So, you don't actually disagree with me, or something?

Romney isn't as bad as Obama. Period. He at least knows how to run a business and would care about foreign policy, and wouldn't have let Obamacare happen. And, in spite of all of that, I would NEVER vote for him.

[Cabal]

Romney isn't as bad as Obama. Period.

Oh, well since you included "period" with your arbitrary assumptions, and apparently disregarded the content of my post entirely, let me just go ahead and take back everything I said. :rolleyes: #sarcasm

In any case, marginal degrees of variance regarding badness, one way or the other, is neither here nor there. You've already admitted that Romney still wasn't worth a vote, regardless, so I honestly have no idea wtf you are even arguing about. The post from Freedom101 wasn't even about Obama, really; it was about flawed reasoning and the importance of consistency and principles. You somehow decoded that into some Romney vs. Obama comparison :confused: and proceeded into some nonsense about the 'lesser of two evils'--the flawed reasoning of this mentality is what I (and evidently Freedom101) was commenting on. I couldn't care less about any Romney vs. Obama debate, and I'm not really sure why you seem to think I could.

[twomp]

So, you don't actually disagree with me, or something?

Romney isn't as bad as Obama. Period. He at least knows how to run a business and would care about foreign policy, and wouldn't have let Obamacare happen. And, in spite of all of that, I would NEVER vote for him.

LOL @ the Obamacare comment. That's priceless.

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1201/obamacare-romneycare-romneycare-politics-1327849063.jpg

[Vanguard101]

So, you don't actually disagree with me, or something?

Romney isn't as bad as Obama. Period. He at least knows how to run a business and would care about foreign policy, and wouldn't have let Obamacare happen. And, in spite of all of that, I would NEVER vote for him.

Wait, are you trolling?

[AuH20]

Rand is certainly no Ron. Watered down principles aren't going to save this country.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it? That was the main problem with Ron. He couldn't convince people to at least hear him out past that scant 10%. Rand is actually making connections with people Ron couldn't even approach.

[LibertyEagle]

If we are talking philosophy and policies, Ron is better, if we are talking effectiveness then Rand is better. Rand knows how to communicate to the masses and get them on his side.

Agreed.

[CaptLouAlbano]

All those that are disagreeing with Ron Paul's statement that his son is like him but better, should be banned from this site. How dare they disagree with Ron in his own forum.

[Todd]

Do people truly believe that Ron Paul would not have significant influence with his son IF Rand won the Presidency?

Brother......:rolleyes:

[compromise]

Rand can attract Democrats and Independents.


Miles is a 24-year-old from San Francisco, and grew up with what he describes as a “liberal background.” He spent the summer after his freshman year interning in then–House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office in Washington. But somewhere between his Capitol Hill internship and graduation, Miles had a political awakening.

“I didn't know what the word liberty meant—I just thought it meant generic freedom,” Miles told me. “At the time, I was making phone calls for Obama, and after he won and I saw the continuation of many Bush policies, I realized that the person at the top can change, but that they're just going to keep signing the same bills.”

Miles believes that the system is broken. He opposes what he sees as an excess of government spending, thinks the US should stop getting involved in foreign conflicts—“neocons are among the worst things to ever happen to this country”—and is particularly concerned with the Obama administration’s infringement on civil liberties.

“This type of stuff is what gets under my skin,” he said. “I wish more people would wake up to the fact that it is both parties carrying out authoritarian action like this.”

Miles said that while he doesn’t agree with Paul on everything, the Kentucky Senator “has done a good job of addressing the issues that I care about.” Libertarianism, he added, “is really the only position you can take without tacitly endorsing the system.”

As Paul’s fundraiser was winding down, I met another potential Paul convert, Frank, a teacher from Oakland, California. Frank told me that he used to teach at Oakland’s Fremont High School, but left after 12 years when one of his students was shot and killed and the funeral service was subsequently shot up by gang members.

“That was really just the last straw,” said Frank, who now teaches at a private high school in Hayward, a tony Oakland suburb.

“The difference between the education that kids are getting at Fremont and kids are getting at this private school, it’s just hurtful,” he said. “The government is just pouring money into fixing these schools, but it’s not working.”

Frank, who described himself as a liberal, said that he was curious to meet Paul, and ended up getting into an extended conversation with the senator and his wife, Kelley Paul, about education policy.

“He’s not like a normal politician,” Frank said. “He was genuinely interested in what I had to say. And it sounds like he actually wants to do something to fix education.”

[CaptLouAlbano]

Rand can attract Democrats and Independents.

Correct. But better stated as Rand can attract Democrats and Independents while still maintaining the Republican base. No one has been able to do that since Reagan in '80.

[56ktarget]

^keep dreaming buddy... We like his social policy but as soon as we hear what he is going to do to medicare and social security, its time for the boot...

[CaptLouAlbano]

^keep dreaming buddy... We like his social policy but as soon as we hear what he is going to do to medicare and social security, its time for the boot...

Medicare, Social Security along with every other form of government welfare needs to be eliminated. While that cannot be done overnight, and could possibly take a generation to wean people off of the system, it needs to be done. No country can survive and thrive long term when nearly 50% of its citizens are dependent upon the government for their survival.

[specsaregood]

^keep dreaming buddy... We like his social policy but as soon as we hear what he is going to do to medicare and social security, its time for the boot...

Funny, Rand just addressed people spreading your lies the other day.

[unknown]

Ron Paul, so humble! There's no one better than you Dr. Paul!!!

http://i.imgur.com/gyC4lsM.jpg

[unknown]

^keep dreaming buddy... We like his social policy but as soon as we hear what he is going to do to medicare and social security, its time for the boot...

Whos "we"?

What is he going to do to medicare and social security? Any links to sources/statements would be helpful.

[MichaelDavis]

Medicare, Social Security along with every other form of government welfare needs to be eliminated. While that cannot be done overnight, and could possibly take a generation to wean people off of the system, it needs to be done. No country can survive and thrive long term when nearly 50% of its citizens are dependent upon the government for their survival.

I know someone who ran on that platform. He received less than 11% of the vote in the Republican Primary. Ron is right when he says Rand is better, at least in terms of politicking. Rand is leading in national polls. This is something Ron has never accomplished.

[cajuncocoa]

I know someone who ran on that platform. He received less than 11% of the vote in the Republican Primary. Ron is right when he says Rand is better, at least in terms of politicking. Rand is leading in national polls. This is something Ron has never accomplished.
Rand isn't better, just more electable on a national level. Ron appealed to a more intellectual group of supporters.

[Vanguard101]

Rand isn't better, just more electable on a national level. Ron appealed to a more intellectual group of supporters.

Rand is more electable and appeals to intellectuals. A lot of Paul supporters aren't as intellectual as we think.