0 votes

10 Reasons Why Rand Paul is a Terrible Person

These people need an education DP style!

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/03/07/10-reasons-why-rand-...

Comment viewing options

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

weak authoritarian statist bs

not worth responding to

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
#standwithrand

Here was my "little" reply...

The Strom Thurmond "point" is a stretch. It's like saying Barry Bonds had a "thing" for Mark McGuire simply because he mentioned McGuire's home run record as he was approaching it. I will not defend Republicans carte blanche(as you evidently do with Democrats) but I will point out hypocrisy when I read it. Have you never heard of Robert Byrd my dear? A well established member of the KKK and DEMOCRAT Senator for many decades? Oooh, but you sound clever associating 'R' with "racist" and "Republican." I've only heard that parroted about a million times already. To understand the Civil Rights Act one must understand it. One must also understand things like self-ownership, private property rights, volunteerism, individual liberty, and the principle of non-aggression. I know you're a big 'ol statist at heart, but it was the state that forced segregation, and it was the state that was responsible for Jim Crow laws. And the state uses force and the threat of violence to usurp the rights of individuals. The Civil Rights Act is no more civil then George Bush's Patriot Act is patriotic. The same applies with the ADA. Obamacare? Please. Just another layer of the onion of corruption. Ever ask yourself why all of those insurance industry lobbyists drafted so much of the bill? And page upon page of pork and special interest payoffs? And again, here rolls in the state to compel the population through the threat of force and confiscation to purchase a product an individual may not want thank you very much. Catch phrases like 'the greater good' and 'the people' are simply abstractions... like 'forest' or 'group'. The state was intended to protect the rights of the individual- not divvy out different rules for different abstractions, I mean groups. If the rights of the individual are protected then everything else is moot. As for guns, well, as my pistol packing wife says "it's [her] great equalizer [if confronted by a rapist twice her size]." She's trained(laws usually aren't necessary to convince a rational person they should know what they're doing so as to not accidentally shoot themselves, and if they're irrational, a law isn't going to stop them anyway) and feels safer having it. How's that for gun safety? Or does my wife not have a right to feel safe and secure? Or should my wife just get raped and beaten then wait for the cops to show up? I don't know about you but I'm a fan of women having the ability to protect themselves. Alas I could go on.... So I shall. Next? Oh, the funding thing? That's rich. Obama's top contributors were corporate law firms and investment banks with names like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan... And much of Rand's contributions came from small donors and fans of his old man Ron Paul from not just in Kentucky but from across the country, hence the larger than usual 'war chest'. Does that change the fact that there were some 'nefarious' donors? No. But people can give their money to whomever they like(or should they be stripped of that right?) and there is not ONE POLITICIAN ALIVE who will look a gift horse in the mouth. The Supreme Court decision regarding labor rights was on the money if you ask me. Why? "“unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract.” That's why. It's a free country yes? You get to choose where you work still, right? Or am I missing something? The purpose of the court is to uphold contracts, not to wipe asses and broker deals for labor disputes between private employers and employees. It's for them to work out. Hence the existence and the purpose of unions and collective bargaining. That's where the constitutional right to freely assemble comes into play. What if a baker wanted to work 80 hours a week as to save money to open his own bakery? Should he be denied an opportunity of achieving a greater station in life because some bureaucrat says so? And who gives a shit what Robert Bork thinks anyway. I don't. Now I couldn't agree with you more and with Rand Paul less regarding abortion, marriage equality and birthright citizenship. It's sad to see him pander to Christians or at the very least believe the stance he has taken regarding these issues. I feel his stance on marriage equality for example is antithetic to his positions on individual freedom. Oh, your post-script is completely slanderous in regards to Ron Paul. Nothing smells as bad as a poopy diaper than the phrase "has been exposed as..." with no reference whatsoever. Nothing I've found (and trust me, I looked hard, albeit objectively-which is seemingly contrary to your methodology) researching the man leads me to believe he has even a grain of racism in his body. The head of the Texas chapter of the NAACP is a longtime friend of his. But maybe he knows nothing and you know Ron Paul much better, enough to judge the man's character. You could just be a believer of "guilt by association." I don't know. If that is the case then d-bags like Limbaugh and Hannity are right and Obama IS a terrorist and a black racist because of his past associations with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Go one way or the other, but don't contradict yourself. And I'm positive there's not one Democrat or Republican who's been supported by someone who's cooked up, or freebased a little meth. The crux to your post is a thinly veiled angst caused by the fact that Jon Stewart, Cenk and the ACLU actually gave a Republican props for standing up for rights that have been around since the Magna Carta. You have to do more than just enter in a couple of Google searches in a few fleeting minutes and actually dig a little deeper if you ever intend on learning something in this life. You consider yourself a political junkie. I consider myself a truth seeker. I'm not interested in cheerleading for or propping up the false left/right/Democrat/Republican paradigm. I could care less about regurgitating the rhetoric from the talking head of the day. I just like to form an opinion of my own, and I suggest you do the same. It's "articles" like these(and I use that term quite loosely) that propagate rumors like "You know Rand Paul was named after Ayn Rand." Well, it's been fun....
P.S. "Rand" is short for "Randall".

.

.

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

I made it to Reason #4

and stopped reading and started skimming... My opinion is that the author should stop sucking at the teet of Statism... and that's all I have to say.

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

I can't handle it

I get sick to my stomach when I read a leftist's hate. Seriously, I would take an ignorant right winger over an idiotic lefty.

I know right. The real enemy

I know right. The real enemy we have to fight is ignorance. Hateful ignorance.