25 votes

All of you who registered Republican are sellouts who endorse the GOP

I'm obviously being sarcastic...

I just want to prove a point. Many of you said Rand is a "sellout" for endorsing Mitt, but then are we all sellouts for registering Republican? Of course not!

The only way we could've voted for Ron or become delegates was if we registered Republican.

The only way Rand will be able to pass any of his freedom-enhancing bills is if he "endorsed" the GOP nominee.

Bottom line: Sometimes, whether you like it or not, you have to play the game to get what you want out of it. Period.

*Note*: Rand's endorsement has in no way changed my opinion on Mitt Romney and I will NOT vote for Mitt Romney.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

None of yer..

When I signed-up there were only two choices, "none of yer damn business party", wasn't one of 'em.

No. We become sell outs when

we actually endorse or vote for Rombama. The GOP, unitl pretty recently, usually paid lip service to small gov't, lower taxes, less spending. After GWB declared "the world changed for ever" the parties became indistinguishable, now in rhetoric as well as practice. Now the only diff is the lip service the GOP candidates pay to religiosity and sexual morality, which will fall by the wayside as soon as the election is over. The state actually hates Christianity which is why they are installing all these Islamic regimes in the Middle East and assisting in the eradication of Christianity there, most recently in Syria with US backed rebels murdering people and blaming the government to "effect regime change"....like the corporate state has the right.

Maybe we are infiltrators rather than sell outs.

Think of yourself as an antibiotic fighting an infection.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Very good analogy

Antirombiotics. Bacillus Ronpaulus,Lol.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

It sure costs allot to be a "sellout".

I have never said anything unkind about Rand, because I like Rand, though I would not have joined the GOP for Rand.

I don't dissagree with what you are saying, however, when your Father is in the race and has not conceeded, there are things you can say besides, "Uncle".

He could have said, "My Dad is still running for president and of course I support my Father, even if I don't agree with him on everything."

It's obvious Ron Paul puts his family first. He sacrifices allot, but when push comes to shove, he choses family.

These are the principles Ron Paul displays that endear him to those who valuse those principles and why Rand upsets us.

Hannity HURT many of us. HURT us, HURT Ron Paul. I don't see Rand getting a second term, and that would be a shame given he does stand for some issues adopted by the rEVOLution.

Love it.

.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

The only thing that matters at this point...

Is what we as a movement are going to do moving forward. We know why Rand endorsed Romney. I don't agree with his decision but I don't think that makes him a bad person. Rand felt his best strategy was to compromise, we don't have to. Actually I think after watching the interviews, he's counting on us to not compromise. We don't have to support Romney and we won't! I think Rand knows that Romney is a horrible human being and will get crushed in November without our support, which gives us 4 years to take over the party and prepare for 2016.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what Rand does at this point. We as a movement are the future of this party and the country.

In the event that Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination we as a movement need to stand strong and not give in the cancer that is the Romney/GOP/Neo-con scum. We need to write in Ron Paul or vote third party or even Obama anything but Romney.

We need to continue taking over this country by staying involved and winning local and state elections. I know I won't rest until every Neo-con dirt bag is voted out of office and replaced with the Liberty Movement/GOP 2.0!

How many of you in here are with me in Never supporting Romney and ripping the power out of the hands of the corrupt establishment GOP Neo-con scum. We push them into obscurity like the roaches that they are.

GOP 2.0 - we cannot be stopped...

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This is a very good goal

Take over the GOP and clean it from neocons. They can go and open a third party, but we take the brand name.

Good

analogy.

end of story

we need to put this to bed.

Excellent point!

Conventions like joining a party, shaking hands with your opponent when you lose, or adhering to the decorum of an event such as wearing a jacket or even tie, have no ideological import. We are for real, not just for show.

Many people haved died for liberty! Surely we can handle a little social discomfort, for crissake.

Agree to disagree and move on

Agree to disagree and move on folks... Rand is a issue that will divide Ron Paul supporters... Rand's next money bomb will tell all. Trashing up the DP threads with this is the worst thing that can be done.

He is not running for election at this time... If you support him there is little you can support him on here and now... Start saving up for his next money Bomb...

If you don't support him then start collecting signatures for his recall (in Kentucky).

In the meantime try to work on what we can all agree on. Ron Paul and his Liberty loving message.

If as much effort that is being wasted on Rand was put into solving these rigged electronic voting machines we would have solved them!

Kentucky does not allow

Kentucky does not allow recalls.

lol, your entire argument rests on one sentence.

"The only way Rand will be able to pass any of his freedom-enhancing bills is if he 'endorsed' the GOP nominee."

Care to substantiate this ridiculous and unfounded claim? Down-voted for using straw man argument.

Rand Explained It Perfectly Well On Ben Swann And Peter Schiff

He was only able to weaken the NDAA because he was a Republican in good standing who had cordial relationships with the likes of John McCain.

In fact, as he explained, he was able to prevail upon John McCain to change his position and become the deciding vote in removing a key indefinite detention provision from the NDAA.

As Rand explained, if he was less of a "go along" type, and if he took to calling McCain and others "evil neocons," he would have never been able to weaken the NDAA as he did.

As I said elsewhere, this is Carol and Ron Paul's son. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

We get to sit on the sidelines and remain pure. Rand is in the trenches and will sometimes need to scrape together every vote he can in order to make a very serious and positive difference in the world.

Let's not begrudge him that opportunity. He just might prevent World War III.

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

Also...

what freedom-enhancing bills? Last I checked, he has caved on sanctions and drones while adopting a neocon opinion on gay marriage. Rand is no better than any other freedom-stealing so-called "conservative" in Congress.

I don't play, I commission the league.

The original meaning of neocon

was a republican in democrat clothes. Like Bill Kristol. They were democrats who switched to the GOP.

Not a very credible opinion.

And have you contacted your Congressmen and Senators to let them know your position.

You suggest that Rand caved, did your Senators know you supported Rand's original position? Or even a stronger position?

With our help, Rand might have been able to get the undiluted product.

Instead you're sniping from the peanut gallery? How does that help?

Free includes debt-free!

"neocon opinion"

on gay marriage? Apparently you don't know the meaning of neocon? Last I heard he was against it which is a plus in my conservative book. We need to weed the liberal influence out and then we will be done with the Neocons.

So...

Who can marry whom is a federal matter? Or, like Neocons in general, you would have the government exceed it's constitutional mandate in order to prohibit that of which you do not approve? Sounds like you are the one who needs to reexamine the difference between a true conservative and a neocon...

No I think you should.

The liberalization of conservatism is what neoconservatism is. Marriage is between a man and a woman PERIOD. And as far as I'm concerned the government has the duty to uphold what is right. Not twist reality to cater to a bunch of degenerates.

That's all I have to say to you.

"government has the duty to uphold what is right."

This idea scares me.

What if the majority of people began to think that the 'right' thing to do for our society was to sterilize all children that didn't meet certain genetic standards? Any child with a genetic predisposition toward certain diseases would be prevented from sending his/hers 'defective' genes into the gene pool, there-buy eradication disease from the human population.

I know this scenario is a little far-retched, but the point I'm trying to make is that once you establish a governmental power there becomes a precedent, and we must imagine how that precedent could be misused. So, If the government has the duty to uphold what is right, as you say, then in this example (that I just thought of), the government would be in the business of deciding which children would be sterilized and which would be allowed to breed. And then imagine the majority decided they wanted all the sterilized people to wear a badge so they could tell who had the ability to breed and who didn't. The government would then be in the business of enforcing the proper display of everyone's badges. Would this be 'right'?

I think the role of government should be as the constitution describes. Very limited. Provide for a national defense, uphold contracts, protect us from fraud and not much else.

"The world is a dynamic mess of jiggling things, if you look at it right." - Richard Feynman

Being against gay marriage IS anti-conservative.

Not only should it not be the government's place to set gender limits on marriage, it also limits homosexual couples' rights. I won't get into the details, but civil unions come with a far shorter list of rights than marriages. This is one area I disagree with even Ron on.

Marriage is between two consenting adults, period, and should be viewed by the government as little more than a mutual contract between two parties. I'm sure Rand would find this opinion to be "gay", but so be it.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Two men together is not holy wedlock,

and has never been. Since when have pairs of sodomites and a catamites ever been the bedrock of society?

From Webster's 1828: "marriage--The act of uniting a man and a woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and a woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of.....promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.'

The point is...

That marriage should not be a governmental issue...

As you point out, it is a RELIGIOUS institution and churches should decide for whom they will officiate...or do you wish to deny that choice to all churches but your own? What other choices would you have denied to churches in religious matters?

When you can show me the constitutional mandate for the federal government to regulate the meaning of or requirements for marriage you will begin to convince me that it is even an issue in an election.

The only valid constitutional conservative position on marriage (regardless of who is marrying) is to get the government out of what is a purely religious matter...including either penalties or rewards for being married.

The feds created this marriage problem.

They offer tax deductions to some and not others, and they offer medical insurance to the employees' legal dependents, legal meaning married spouses and their children, and not others. The way to fix their problem is to just pay their employees their wages, and offer no "benefits". The feds are the ones who are responsible for "benefits", too. During Nixon there were wage controls, so for companies to get around that and be able to attract the talent they needed, they started offering extras to compensate for the lack of pay. So, that problem is also based on unconstitutional actions in the first place. One unconstitutional action begets thousands more just like one lie requires lots more as time goes on.

Second, the feds are us, they are of our culture, they are to naturally understand things the way the rest of us do. Our culture is monogamous, not polygamous, (as one example) therefore whatever they do in D.C. should naturally reflect that.

So you agree...

That the problem is based in the unconstitutional "sponsorship" of marriage by the feds...regardless of who is marrying whom.

As I said, the solution is for the government to get out of the way and quit interfering in a purely religious institution...the First Amendment demands it.

Sorry for the misunderstanding...I thought you were sounding like you were one of those idiots who want the feds to interfere even more by telling churches who they could marry and who they can't.

Though, then, your last paragraph still sounds as if you think there is some invisible constitutional provision for interference in "cultural" matters not enumerated among the powers of central government...and that sounds awfully liberal to me...

Marriage was instituted by God himself

"Marriage was instituted by God himself..."

what utter BS!

Marriage was created when humans moved from hunter/gatherer
into farming and laid up excess goods so men wanted sons to help protect their stored up goods/grains/cattle

THAT was when marriage was created by some rabbis/priests
so men could control womens breeding and be assured the only sons a wife bore were his own sons and not who she might have enjoyed having mutual pleasures with

As hunter/gatherers we mated for pleasure with what other we felt attracted to
we were attracted to the brightest and strongest so ANY progeny
were breeding UP to the best of our kind

This is history and not your religious dogma

'bout time you learned the TRUTH

dont bother to attack me as I wont reply or be drawn into your religious mind programs

There is enough of that just standing in line at the supermarket
where xians ask if I know jesus or god, meaning if I bow to their mind programmed myth
I no longer try to be civil as they have proliferated like bottle flies

talk to yourself
but I couldnt let you spread that same old same old BS

a little EDUCATION would help you ease on into the
21 St Century.

a self proclaimed grill master visits today to show off
his skills, lol

My duties as host are lessened, I hope.
I shall be outdoors most of this day which is the way I
celebrate all DIVINITY , :)

have at it puppet for the popes

_____________________________

Pagans are tolerant by NATURE.
.

I pray that the Almighty

will be kind to you and give you peace and joy.

What planet do you live on?

If you think conservatism should support your degenerate activity then you are really in lala land.