Forum Question About Rand

[Sola_Fide]

If Rand gets through the primaries and becomes the nominee, and he chooses a neocon for VP, what will you say?

[TheTexan]

Does Rand Paul have a son we can start grooming for President?

[Christian Liberty]

I'm already about ready to give up on Rand at the moment. But then, I've been there a couple times, so I might well change my mind again. I'm just sick of compromise, and Rand is playing the part of political whore most excellently.

[TheTexan]

Rand is playing the part of political whore most excellently.

Playing the whore, without getting paid

[Sola_Fide]

I'm already about ready to give up on Rand at the moment. But then, I've been there a couple times, so I might well change my mind again. I'm just sick of compromise, and Rand is playing the part of political whore most excellently.

Do you know the idiot Reconstructionist Douglas Wilson supported Santorum last time around?

[Christian Liberty]

Do you know the idiot Reconstructionist Douglas Wilson supported Santorum last time around?

That's stupid. I've seen Doug Wilson say Ron Paul "doesn't understand the severity of the Islamic threat." Wilson says some good things, but he also says a lot of bad stuff.

The alternative to me supporting Rand would be me not supporting anybody. I don't really like the idea of not supporting anybody. I also really dislike compromise, and Rand lecturing Hillary about her lack of fear of Iran getting a nuke is a bit much.

Just out of curiosity, what was the point of this post? You mentioned Wilson, but I get the impression you're trying to hit me with it as well. As if I agreed with everyone under the label "reconstructionist."

[Sola_Fide]

That's stupid. I've seen Doug Wilson say Ron Paul "doesn't understand the severity of the Islamic threat." Wilson says some good things, but he also says a lot of bad stuff.

The alternative to me supporting Rand would be me not supporting anybody. I don't really like the idea of not supporting anybody. I also really dislike compromise, and Rand lecturing Hillary about her lack of fear of Iran getting a nuke is a bit much.

Just out of curiosity, what was the point of this post? You mentioned Wilson, but I get the impression you're trying to hit me with it as well. As if I agreed with everyone under the label "reconstructionist."

Just saying that Reconstructionists are very comfortable with totalitarian candidates.

[Christian Liberty]

Just saying that Reconstructionists are very comfortable with totalitarian candidates.

I'm not*. I guess I'm not a reconstructionist then?

(Well, unless you think I'm a totalitarian, or Ron Paul, or something:p)

[TaftFan]

A neocon or non-libertarian? (There is a difference)

If he chooses Tom Cotton I would not be pleased.

[Christian Liberty]

A neocon or non-libertarian? (There is a difference)

If he chooses Tom Cotton I would not be pleased.

I'm not a libertarian, but I am a non-interventionist. Rand is hiding his non-intervention to win votes. I'm curious how Sola_Fide would justify that, considering he tends to be pretty morally absolutist in general.

[Christian Liberty]

Sola, would it be "totalitarian" to enforce the Biblical law at a local level the way it is described in the Old Testament (minus the ceremonial elements)? Or are you saying recons are comfortable with totalitarian candidates for other reasons?

[Southron]

I dont know. Would anyone here have voted for Romney if he had picked Ron Paul?

[69360]

I'd vote for him anyway. Anything is better than Hillary.

I'm not real thrilled at the moment about this whole "Iran with a nuke is a threat" thing coming from Rand Paul Inc. Hopefully it was just a staffer posting it.

I can't see me putting time and money into his campaign if this is really the case, but would still vote for him.

[CaptUSA]

If Rand gets through the primaries and becomes the nominee, and he chooses a neocon for VP, what will you say?
I am fully prepared to accept that if he were to win the nomination, he would have to throw the establishment a bone. I thought the same thing about Ron. There's no way they allow someone to take down the whole ship in one election.

[Crashland]

Rand would need to do a lot more than that before he loses my vote.

[Sola_Fide]

A neocon or non-libertarian? (There is a difference)

If he chooses Tom Cotton I would not be pleased.

Let's say he picked Scott Walker (who has said some disgustingly warmongering things lately)? What then?

[Sola_Fide]

I dont know. Would anyone here have voted for Romney if he had picked Ron Paul?

That's an impossibility. Can you imagine Ron speaking on behalf of Romney's policies?

[Southron]

That's an impossibility. Can you imagine Ron speaking on behalf of Romney's policies?

No but it is going to be quite difficult for a neocon to speak on behalf of Rand as well.

VP have so little real power I am not sure it will make much difference apart from the death of the President.

[TaftFan]

Let's say he picked Scott Walker (who has said some disgustingly warmongering things lately)? What then?

Walker is not an ideologue. He will say anything to get elected. I've tried to take him down lately. But I would vote for that ticket.

[69360]

VP have so little real power I am not sure it will make much difference apart from the death of the President.

Tell that to Cheney.

[acptulsa]

Tell that to Cheney.

Rand ain't Dubya.

For one thing, he regularly speaks English.

For another, he doesn't think Elizabeth was queen in 1776...

[orenbus]

I'm not real thrilled at the moment about this whole "Iran with a nuke is a threat" thing coming from Rand Paul Inc. Hopefully it was just a staffer posting it.


Yea I don't get this one as well, if it was a staffer you would think they would have pulled the post by now if it actually was a conflict of stance on issues. At the same time listen to this interview in 2007 between 30:00 and 31:20.

http://www.wgtrmedia.com/uploads/6/4/1/4/6414999/121207paul.mp3

[Rudeman]

Depends on who it is.

[georgiaboy]

A party unifying move from recent history is to pick as VP one of the other top contenders in the race. Some folks run just to get the name recognition and support necessary to position them for the spot.

To that end, I was wondering about the possibility of a Carly Fiorina.

If he gets the nomination, I'll support him with bells on.

[fr33]

It wouldn't be a deal breaker for me, assuming the VP isn't Graham, McCain, or Bolton. It would likely not be a neo-con. Probably just a damned "conservative".

[TaftFan]

A neocon or non-libertarian? (There is a difference)

If he chooses Tom Cotton I would not be pleased.
Not long after I say this I see this comment on FB:
https://scontent-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/250226_412361372263715_186634995492807546_n.jpg?oh =55db6a129e11babeac40ad3131c51c26&oe=55AF0581

[acptulsa]

After filling the religion subforum with stuff designed to scare socons away from here, we get this thread designed to elicit responses that would scare neocon sympathizers.

Charming.

Wesley Clark. Let the neocons try to slander and sling mud at Gen. Clark. Let anyone say he isn't a principled man.

Now let's see if the trolls try to let this thread die.

[Christian Liberty]

After filling the religion subforum with stuff designed to scare socons away from here, we get this thread designed to elicit responses that would scare neocon sympathizers.

Charming.

Wesley Clark. Let the neocons try to slander and sling mud at Gen. Clark. Let anyone say he isn't a principled man.

Now let's see if the trolls try to let this thread die.

This board is filled with political and religious compromise. Its sad. More concerned with winning than with principle.

[acptulsa]

This board is filled with political and religious compromise. Its sad. More concerned with winning than with principle.

Most of the people on this board want to get some principle into practice--even if it's just a little, so people can see that it works damned well--to try to make a positive difference in people's lives.

Only a few of the people want to argue in favor of remaining completely pure and completely ineffective, so that when they say...


https://youtube.com/watch?v=FlcngdW2Ju4

...it requires three hours of sanctimoniousness and sounds just like this...


11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

[TaftFan]

This board is filled with political and religious compromise. Its sad. More concerned with winning than with principle.

For some of us, winning is also a principle.

[TaftFan]

This board is filled with political and religious compromise. Its sad. More concerned with winning than with principle.

For some of us, winning is also a principle.

[acptulsa]

For some of us, winning is also a principle.

No, it isn't. Winning can allow you to enforce good principles for the benefit of many, or bad principles for the benefit of few. But winning can never, ever be a principle.

If this is as close as you can come to understanding what a principle is, that's a terrible shame.

[Sola_Fide]

After filling the religion subforum with stuff designed to scare socons away from here, we get this thread designed to elicit responses that would scare neocon sympathizers.

Charming.

Wesley Clark. Let the neocons try to slander and sling mud at Gen. Clark. Let anyone say he isn't a principled man.

Now let's see if the trolls try to let this thread die.


I'm trying to "scare socons away" now? Have you been drinking tonight?

[acptulsa]

I'm trying to "scare socons away" now? Have you been drinking tonight?

You're the one who hijacked a thread just to go off on Billy Graham. What was the intended effect, if not to alienate socons?

[Sola_Fide]

You're the one who hijacked a thread just to go off on Billy Graham. What was the intended effect, if not to alienate socons?

I don't remember that, but if I did do that I probably wasn't even concerned with politics at all. I rarely care about politics.

[acptulsa]

I don't remember that, but if I did do that I probably wasn't even concerned with politics at all. I rarely care about politics.

Well, that certainly explains why you started this thread, doesn't it?

[Sola_Fide]

Well, that certainly explains why you started this thread, doesn't it?

Yes. It's one of my rare political threads. Are you going to Rand's announcement in Louisville?

[Christian Liberty]

For some of us, winning is also a principle.

Not for me.

[Rudeman]

Kind of hard to apply your principles if you don't win. Whether electorally or otherwise.

[PierzStyx]

VP have so little real power I am not sure it will make much difference apart from the death of the President.

And there is the rub. If you think Rand is the right guy, maybe he wouldn't last that long in office before being "martyred" for the "cause."

[PierzStyx]

For some of us, winning is also a principle.

If you don't care how you win then you aren't much better than the neocons, who lie all the time in order to win.

[PAF]

Unfortunately, this guy doesn't know Rand's record. But he does make sense concerning everything else. I support Rand, but anything can "happen" if the wrong VP is selected.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-lnCHxAqR0

[willwash]

If Rand gets through the primaries and becomes the nominee, and he chooses a neocon for VP, what will you say?

+rep for starting a non-religion thread

[Peace Piper]

Wesley Clark. Let the neocons try to slander and sling mud at Gen. Clark. Let anyone say he isn't a principled man.


Wesley Clark, the warmonger that almost started WW3 at the end of the PNAC war he commanded? (http://web.archive.org/web/20030210080835/http://www.newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm)


Pristina International Airport incident

One of Clark's most debated decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation to attack Russian troops at Pristina International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War in June 1999. A joint NATO–Russia peacekeeping operation was supposed to police Kosovo. Russia wanted their peacekeeping force to operate independent of NATO, but NATO refused. British forces were supposed to occupy Pristina International Airport, but a contingent of Russian troops arrived before they did and took control of the airport. Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, who told him "you have transfer of authority" in the area.

General Clark then issued an order for the NATO troops to attack and "overpower" the armed Russian troops, but Captain James Blunt leading the British troops questioned this order[80] and was supported in this decision by General Mike Jackson, the British commander of the Kosovo Force. Jackson refused to sanction the attack, reportedly saying "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you".[81][82] Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians, instead insisting that troops encircle the airfield. After two days of standoff and negotiations, NATO agreed to an independent Russian peacekeeping force, and Russia relinquished control of the airport. The refusal was criticized by some senior U.S. military personnel, with American general Hugh Shelton calling Jackson's refusal "troubling". During hearings in the United States Senate, Senator John Warner suggested that the refusal might have been illegal, and that if it was legal rules potentially should be changed.[83] British Chief of the Defence Staff Charles Guthrie agreed with Jackson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark#Pristina_International_Airport_incide nt

Here's "principled" Wesley


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pGkFMho6Co

Clark is "principled" all right- he's a lying partisan so called "democrat". A truly disgusting man.

[Peace Piper]

Does Rand Paul have a son we can start grooming for President?

Enough with the Pauls. Time to find some new blood, before Rand completely destroys what Ron managed to do.

[Brian4Liberty]

If Rand gets through the primaries and becomes the nominee, and he chooses a neocon for VP, what will you say?

That he made the same choice as Reagan.

[brandon]

At this point I don't really care about who his VP is. I'm more interested in seeing just how far he's willing to go to get votes. He's slowly moderated all his positions over the last couple years, which I'm kind of okay with. However, if he really steps that up a notch I may just bail out before the VP selection really comes around.

I've also come to realize that these national elections are mostly just entertainment to most of us rather than anything meaningful. The results don't really change much in our lives.

I don't know... probably shouldn't listen to me as I'm not quite the die hard politico I once was.

[acptulsa]

Clark is "principled" all right- he's a lying partisan so called "democrat". A truly disgusting man.

*sigh*

Interesting what we don't hear about, isn't it.

Still, a principled general would be a good choice, for a few sound reasons. Is there such a thing any more?

[Sola_Fide]

That he made the same choice as Reagan.

Ouch. That was a bad choice.

[dannno]

Anybody but Bush. Last time a libertarian candidate had a Bush as a VP he got shot.