I would be very interested to know. Is there another Senator who you can hold up and say 'see, Rand should be more like THIS'?
Last edited by Origanalist; 06-10-2012 at 09:42 AM.
Yes? No?
It is too bad that Johnson chose to run a hopeless presidential campaign rather than running for that Senate seat. A lot of liberty people like him and he would have probably gotten just as much support for a senate run as Rand did from Ron's base.
He could be looking at joining Rand in the Senate an kicking some ass as a team on the many issues they agree upon; but he chose not to.
Last edited by specsaregood; 06-10-2012 at 10:09 AM.
No arguement from me on that. But he didn't.
Originalist, I asked the same question in a different thread and didn't get anyone to answer for two days, even after I bumped it.
Fact is, Rand is still the most liberty-oriented member of the Senate.
That means all the ultra-purists here are beating up the man who comes closest to their views while not saying a peep about the other 99 senators who are much more antithetical to liberty.
Way to make progress, guys.Why are we always so quick to throw our own under the bus, while giving a pass to the authoritarians???
+1776Originally Posted by KCIndy
Rand Paul 2016!
No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.
Which disease do you prefer? Ebola virus? or Smallpox?
False choice is still false choice.
Rand Paul is just as bad as the rest of them. He had greater gifts and therefore had a greater responsibility. He threw it all away for his own benefit.
Rand is more like a really mild case of the flu.
No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.
glen bradley has yet to get into the house in d.c or even run for the u.s.a senate.
many of us can think of someone like adam kokesh or john dennis who is trying to
make a difference. i see young people around me who have yet to make their mark
on the world, but when they do, we will feel we have more options down the road.
rand paul is an honest man with a great responsibility on his sholders. i like rand!!!
Shaking my head at the desires of purists.
We get it - you want 100 Ron Pauls in the Senate and 435 of them in the House.
Keep wishing.
As my ex used to say "want in one hand and $hit in the other. See which fills up faster!"
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
This is what someone usually says to me as a way convince me to not "throw my vote away on someone who can't win" ... in other words, it's what someone says when they want me to compromise my values. I usually tell them it's better to lose with your values intact than to win having sold them to the devil. Compromising with evil is what gets us deeper and deeper into this mess.
We may not be able to have "100 Ron Pauls in the Senate and 435 of them in the House" but I won't enable some candidate who doesn't share most of my values.
Yeah, the purists won't actually have anyone to support after Ron retires from Congress.Originalist, I asked the same question in a different thread and didn't get anyone to answer for two days, even after I bumped it.
Fact is, Rand is still the most liberty-oriented member of the Senate.
That means all the ultra-purists here are beating up the man who comes closest to their views while not saying a peep about the other 99 senators who are much more antithetical to liberty.
Way to make progress, guys.
that rarified purist 97,98,99 or 100% percentile leaves when he leaves office! we get this! we feel this way, too!
Lol. Really? Rand Paul doesn't share most of your values? So I guess you're not in favor of lower taxes, less spending, fewer regulations, opposing the Patriot Act, the NDAA, CISPA, SOPA, opposing war with Iran and Libya, opposing the Federal Reserve, etc.
Go back and read the exchange again. Nowhere in my post did I even mention Rand's name.
Rand voted for Iran Sanctions.
And agreeing with 99% of Rand's votes isn't good enough, correct? He has to be perfect, 100% of the time, or else you can't support him.
So I suppose you were talking about Romney? In that case, if Rand agrees with most of Romney's positions, then why shouldn't he support him?
See, this is where I veer off. I think its pretty obvious that Rand doesn't agree with much of anything that Romney believes. I mean, when he was talking to Hannity about his similarities with Romney, what did Rand mention:
First he started off with how their families are similar and he ended by talking about all the things he has been trying to get Romney to concede on.
Political maneuvering is political maneuvering. I thought it was obvious.
I wasn't speaking about Romney either. No names were mentioned in the post to which I replied; I was speaking in general terms.
Look, I never said Rand doesn't share ANY of my values. That said, I've always been aware that I'm closer to what his Dad is than to Rand.
But I guess I misjudged just how far apart Rand and Ron are.
Yes, I'm disappointed with Rand's endorsement. I'm even more disappointed to read that he would be "honored" to accept the #2 spot on Mitt's ticket. However, Rand can do what he wants, and I can choose to like it or not.
Before I decide whether I wish to contribute financially to his senate re-election campaign, I need to see what direction he's taking going forward. He will need to earn my trust back. It could happen. Can't vote for him, because I don't live in Kentucky.
I will not contribute to nor vote for a Romney/Paul ticket. Never.
In my 50+ years there has been exactly one man who I feel comfortable with governing any part of my families life and that's Ron Paul.
His son is still too wet behind the ears for me to have an opinion one way or another..........As far as "other senators" I'd recommend as a person to emulate........Not a one!
I would be more comfortable throwing darts at a map and hiring whomever has callouses to represent me and mine that some double-talking stuffed shirt suit.
There are none. But he doesn't really need to, really the only value I expect out of any of them at this point is to follow the constitution...everything else is gravy on top. Rand comes with a lot of gravy.
I think the main reason why Rand endorsed Romney is because he wanted to be in the good graces of the GOP for a future Presidential run. However, I do think that Rand obviously views Romney as an improvement over Obama. (If very slight.)
He said he would be honored to be CONSIDERED as a VP candidate. He's been saying the EXACT same thing since the Presidential election started.
But my personal perspective is that Romney is slightly better than Obama on domestic issues, and slightly worse than Obama on foreign policy issues. Overall, it's a wash.
Rand is the best. Mike Lee is very similar to him. They are the two we can trust for sure.
Lieberman, McCain, and Feinstein are champions of American Constitutional ideals. Lindsey Graham, too.
I don't know. I hope Rand doesn't think that Romney is even slightly better than Obama, because I don't....and if Rand thought that, it would irk me. Romney is far worse on war/civil liberty issues than Obama (as if it could get any worse).
If this is your one and sole problem with Rand, then honestly I think you (general you) are just as guilty as the sheeple that buy whatever FoxNews sells.
The Iran sanction came with his amendment, a check mate for the establishment, in that sanctions in no way constituted an authority of war. Do the people who want to string Rand up by his toenails for this ONE VOTE really understand how we ended up in Iraq??? I'm gonna guess not since this ONE VOTE is apparently enough to toss him into the volcano as a sacrifice. *rolling my eyes*
Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779
Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us