Thumbs up, he is every bit as good as his dad.
Thumbs down, his alignment with some elements of the neocons pushed me off his bandwagon
I'm not sure yet, let's wait and see what he does in the Senate first.
Recently, it has become apparent that Rand does not oppose war, and has some very different, non-libertarian ideas that don't align with his dad- or any other principled libertarian. Putting aside any comparisons with liberals or hard core neocons, what is your view of the Rand man now?
Still better than Conway, and I'll still give him the benefit of the doubt and at least one term.
What do you mean he doesn't oppose war? I think you are misguided on that one. Most Libertarians believe in a strong national defense, including Ron Paul.
What is apparent to you is not apparent to me. He supports a strong national defense. Who wouldn't? He is the type of person that would actually end the overseas wars and reduce our presence overseas.
He is your best ticket to a more free world. Rand is politically savvy. He may be able to do things his dad could not do. I like Ron Paul for his honest heart, brillant mind, and dedication to liberty and freedom. Ron Paul is one of a kind, however he can seem edgy when you don't know where he is coming from...like most statists and neocons. Rand is more smooth and can deliver the same message in a way that seems sensible.
Don't throw that away.
"National defense" violates the non-aggression principle, which libertarians usually will uphold. It's an area I disagree with Ron on, but at least he can see the foolishness of Afghanistan whereas Rand cannot.Originally Posted by RonPaulCult
And I should note I oppose war much like Kucinich does. So I'm not exactly like Rand Paul either. But give him a chance - he said he would bring the troops home from Iraq. He said he has serious questions about the war in Afghanistan. He said he believes congress should always declare war. What more do you want from a Republican nominee? He is far and away better than most people running for office.
People need to remember that NOBODY is Ron Paul. He is truly one of a kind. But Rand comes pretty damn close.
Again, "national defense" violates the non-aggression principle, so no, I am no for it. I agree that Rand is more politically savvy and smoother, but he compromises too many principles for me to get excited about him.
I don't like him saying criticizing BP is un-American, it makes him sound corporatist.
I'll wait and see how he votes as to whether he really is another corporatist or not though.
defense is a just use of force. unless you are a pacifist.
rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler
Yeah - I'll give you that one. But he wants to end the fed and he's against the bailouts. So at least he doesn't believe in corporations having control over our government. He just seems to support them in the private sector - which - I for one can live with.
Rand took an nuanced position to avoid being clobbered on a war that still has majority support. Ron voted for authorization to invade Afghanistan and Rand said he would have done that but only through a declaration of war. That's not the same as saying "I still support the Afghanistan war today". Ron is an incumbent. Rand is trying to get elected. Break eggs to make omlettes, politics is like making sausage, (fill in your favorite cliche').
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Well you'll be happy to know he didn't say that. Criticizing BP is one thing. Saying you'll put your boot on their neck is something totally different. Also the final investigation of what happened isn't complete. Rand said BP should pay for the damage and cleanup.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Rand was really most critical of BO and the White House being so quick to judgment of BP actions in international waters . . .
very un- Executive Branch-like to rely on shody info . . . oops I forgot why we went into Iraq with Bush43 . . . never mind - this is just a trend BO is following.
Where's the third option, "OP is a concern troll"?
That option appears to be left off. an honest mistake i'm sure.
rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler
I'm concerned with Rand forgoing non-interventionist rhetoric because of its slippery slope effect on the broader movement, but I still think Rand is likely to strongly oppose any future wars, unless we're actually the defending party for once. Judging by his style, he's more likely to fall back on a practical fiscal stance than a principled moral stance against insane wars, but that's likely to get better results with conservatives anyway (and he's likely to still have underlying principled reasons). I'm not 100% trusting, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, especially considering Ron Paul considers Rand to see pretty eye-to-eye with him (just with a different approach). Remember, even Ron Paul voted to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan. That obviously turned out to be a mistake in hindsight, given what it turned into. I can also understand principled reasons against having voted for it altogether. Still, the current nation-building quagmire is not what Ron Paul actually authorized, and I don't think Rand Paul supports what we actually ended up doing either. Has Rand made any comment supporting staying in Afghanistan indefinitely, nation-building, or anything like that?
Basically, I'm in "wait and see" mode with Rand. I'm not as enthusiastic about him as I could be, but I still support him, because he's still definitely better than the status quo on every issue. That includes the war issue (which is crucial for me), even if he doesn't come off as principled as I am or Ron Paul is. I hope he turns out to be more principled than he leads on, but in any case, he meets my standard for compromise: I'll accept temporary compromises by going only half-way towards full-blown liberty, but I'll accept only forward movement. I won't accept any "two steps forward, one step back" stuff (which is usually vice versa or worse).
In short, I like Rand and think he'd be the best Senator we've had in any of our lifetimes, but I'm cautious about how his tone might affect the future of this movement from an educational standpoint. I'm willing to compromise on tone for its own sake, and I'm willing to compromise on pacing, but I'm not willing to compromise on our actual direction.
Last edited by Mini-Me; 05-21-2010 at 04:02 PM.
I need an education in US history, from the ground up. Can you help point me to a comprehensive, unbiased, scholarly resource?
I had misread a bit on it though, so I was unfairly critical of him it seems.
What are you blathering about? National Defense does not violate it at all. A unified defense to repel aggressors in no way shape of form does this. You are misusing a term.....and I think we ought to always dilleniate between an anarchist (which i suspect you will turn out to be) and a libertarian.
It's much too early to tell.
I'm behind Rand.
"national defense" is a misnomer. There is nothing that our military is currently doing that is defending us in any way shape or form. Citizen militias could defend this country from any invasion (not that there would ever be one) and I can defend myself and my property. I do not need a bloated military trampling all over the middle east in order to protect me. I think that proponents of a strong military in order to defend ourselves are being "intellectually dishonest". I have very ill feelings towards anybody who has the audacity to claim that they are for reducing the size of government, and at the same time advocating the status quo when it comes to our behemoth military.
What attracted me to this movement in the first place was Ron's uncompromising position on foreign policy and his ability to challenge convention wisdom on the subject. I know Ron lost the election, but that did not matter to me. He woke people up and made people think differently about important issues. I think Rand is watering down this movement and selling out the core principals, which to me are 1. non-interventionism 2. civil liberties and 3. free market capitalism. He's great on number 3, but hardly different than Sarah Palin and the rest of the Republicans on 1 or 2. I think Rand is extremely intelligent, but also I believe he's a complete political opportunist who is more concerned about gettting himself elected, than standing up for the principals of an ideological movement.
Last edited by Justinjj1; 05-21-2010 at 04:49 PM.
"National Defense" only violates the non aggression principle if it is paid for by confiscatory taxes.
That said, I certainly believe independent militias are far more effective and less prone to abuse.
And THAT said, I'm perfectly willing to tolerate Rand's support for a national defense, as long as he doesn't support aggressive war, or the continuation of such wars. I'm not looking for him to abolish the department of defense ... just come home from Iraq and Afghanistan (and end the surveillance state, of course).
Again, we'll see what he does in the senate.
“If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis
The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.
If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.
RP never said he opposed war, he said he opposed undeclared wars, like we have now.
Anyway, anyone who voted they aren't sure makes the MSM happy in the pants. Mission Accomplished.
Rand has been getting enough criticism in the MSM the last couple days. Shame he is getting it here as well.
I support him 100%.
I think he;as Ron Paul's son; is our most important candidate, that apple did not fall far from the tree and a Rand Paul win in November would be huge!
"Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.” Barry Goldwater
That part of your argument has been rejected by most people on RPF during Ron's 2008 presidential campaign. It is referred to as the "lesser of two evils". As RPF multitudes were saying 2-3 years ago, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
My position is that all of this negative propaganda in the media is a distraction away from focusing on Rand's platform, specifically his positions on foreign and economic policy.
Maxed out to ALL of Ron Paul's campaigns.
Listen to Liberty Tree Radio! ::
Pro-Liberty, Pro-Gun, Pro-Militia Radio 5 days a week, 10 LIVE HRS TALK RADIO PER DAY!
http://www.libertytreeradio.4mg.com
http://www.themicroeffect.com (8A - 11A EST daily)
http://www.live365.com/stations/edtheak47 (3 PM- 9 PM EST daily)
Organize, Arm, Equip, and Train as a Militia !
The way I see it, there's voting for the "lesser of two evils," and there's voting for the "lesser of goods." You're doing the former when you vote for someone who claims to want to make things better in some ways but worse in others. (The term isn't even all that accurate, because this aspect makes neither evil clearly "less bad" than the other across the board.) In the end, these candidates end up following through on only their bad positions anyway, so continuing to vote for them only makes things progressively worse. In contrast, you're doing the latter when you vote for someone who will make things better across the board, just not necessarily by going as far in some areas as you'd like.
Last edited by Mini-Me; 05-21-2010 at 05:53 PM.
I need an education in US history, from the ground up. Can you help point me to a comprehensive, unbiased, scholarly resource?
Your poll doesn't apply to me. I'm pissed out how he's handling media scrutiny.
if modern agriculture continues to follow the path it's on now, it's finished. The food-growing situation may seem to be in good shape today, but that's just an illusion based on the current availability of petroleum fuels. All the wheat, corn, and other crops that are produced on big American farms may be alive and growing, but they're not products of real nature or real agriculture. They're manufactured rather than grown. The earth isn't producing those things.. petroleum is! -Masanobu Fukuoka
I could care less if 99.9% of people claim to support the killing of innocent people in foreign lands. It's morally wrong, and not standing up and making that point just waters down our message.
Very well said, I'm completely with you.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us