Nystrom or mods please delete this thread...
This debate has to happen and get fleshed out.
Better to do it now than later.
Any Republican in the liberty movement who doesn't support Rand2016 re-election is an idiot. Same with a possible Presidential primary run. He's the ONLY horse you RepublICANs will really have in that race. Who else you going to back - Jeb Bush? Herman Cain? Santorum? Rubio? You have no one else. You have all your eggs in one basket. So the question is, whats your plan?
Rove and Michael Reagan have a plan. Their plan is to see McCain and Graham re-elected, and to neuter Rand Paul in the Senate by seeing Mitch McConnell defeated. Within his own party there are many forces with an interest in greatly weakening Rands position before the 2016 GOP race gets underway in spring 2015. Part of that plan is to make supporters and allies, libertarians, constitutionalists, appear to the public just as we're portrayed - like abrasive hothead radical fringe nut-jobs. And they are present here practically round the clock. If you take what John Bolton told students for liberty last week "Want to destroy a movement? Defend the Confederacy!" as a metaphor message instead of a snarky statement, you'll know exactly what to be on the lookout for here. 90% or more of the traffic here are visitors not registered account holders. It's all about the subject header not the body of content, you dig?
My advice to those anticipating a 2016 Rand Presidency is, if you are to have a snowballs chance in haites of beating that RNC cheat machine you witnessed in Tampa; keep gaining committee seats, and throw everything you have behind getting McConnell re-elected. Suck it up. It's politics. It's the path you chose to take. It's the game you chose to play in the party you chose to play it in. Regardless of how the Presidential contest ends, win or lose, Rand the US Senator still has to win re-election in Kentucky in 2016.
Full disclosure: I am a Libertarian. As of right now, today, I can firmly say I will not be putting my efforts and resources to work in the 2016 primary election contest (rigged). I will be putting them to work in the LP nomination process (honest). But in Pennsylvania that will still allow me a primary election vote in the Republican contest or the Democrat contest. I could give it to Rand, or I could give it to the strongest Democratic opponent of Hillary/Biden.
Since 2007, I, like many of you, worked hard and sacrificed a lot organizing a pro-liberty movement in the GOP. In spite of being cheated throughout the process by the establishment, and getting thrown under the RepublICAN bus in the end, and having sand kicked in our faces for having a November Plan-B that didn't include Romney or a write-in, "big L" such as myself want you RepublICANs to succeed. I don't want you to fail. I'm not your opponent. I'm not your enemy. My primary election vote is Rands for you RepublICANs to screw-up and lose between now and then.
at the prospect of being a Republican spoiler to ensure another defeat for the GOP in 2016.
Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets
You can lead a man to knowledge but you can’t make him think
Tell Me Your Jesse Ventura knockout story
This is very premature; discussing who the 2016 nominee is or might be. We need to be working on 2014 and the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. As to Rand, time will tell. The biggest concern I have is Glen Beck, and Hannity cozying up to Rand. Those two make my skin crawl. But then again they could just be using Rand to enhance their own standing. The single best hope we have to save this republic right now is the tenth amendment and nullification. If the people won't stand up to the tyrants now, what makes any of us think they will during the next election? TEA Party placards and slogans won't be enough, resistance is the only language the establishment will understand;Peace through strength.
RON PAUL is the GOLD STANDARD of politics, his value never changes; it's tied to the CONSTITUTION!
I guess thats why I fought so hard against Rand and his compromises in the beginning.
I talked a good "middle" game but when it came down to brass tacks, I wasn't really ready to move that way. Now, I am. Maybe its because "they" (the obombya group/the nwo globalists) moved SO FAR away from anything I could accept that the middle suddenly seemed very appealing. I'm not sure. Either way, I'm here, in the middle, and sticking up for Rand now.
I truly think this middle is a good beginning. Its a good beginning for like-minded dems and the gop. Its a VERY good place to stop this tyranny in it's tracks.
I don't think Rand is being devisive. I think he has drawn a line in the sand.
Henry Clay was known as "the great compromiser". Maybe I am starting to get it.
its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
Defeat CORKER! Bailed out the banks. In training to steal more.
Defeat ALEXANDER! Career traitor! Handsomely rich in a poor Nation.
The establishment would like nothing better than for us to ignore viable libertarian Republicans like Rand, and instead focus our energies on futile third party or write-in candidacies. They aren't afraid of our meaningless protest votes, they are terrified that we might actually win an election. I am absolutely certain that *some* anti-Rand individuals are getting their checks cut by the Republican establishment.
Fully agreed, you know the PTB/elites pick your term, noticed the 1+Million Tweets during the Fillibuster the other day....
*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"
I'm not sure what to think. I guess like Ron Paul would say, I'm cautiously optimistic.
Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.
Does anyone else find it interesting that all of a sudden Rush Limbaugh and others like him are praising Rand while bashing the neocons, whose water they gladly carried all these years?
It just all seems too convenient and too good to be true. You know that old saying about if it sounds too good to be true...
Rush did praise Ron ... sometimes.
My guess is that he is willing to praise Rand more for 2 reasons
1> Rand does not sound as "extreme" as Ron
2> And this is the most important reason. Praising Rand does not require Rush to admit he was wrong.
That was the biggest obstacle we faced with Republicans. Supporting Ron *required* them to admit nation building in Iraq was a failure and a colossally bad idea. Ron wouldn't give his opponents an out on that subject. I don't think he could have if had wanted to. Rand is a little softer on that subject ... But more importantly he isn't Ron. He didn't call out the Republicans on stage in 2007. Nation building in Iraq is in the past and supporting Rand doesn't require Republicans to take the blame for screwing up the country over the past 10 years.
Politically that's probably good. Personally I'd like to rub their nose in it ... but that doesn't win votes.
...if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. I think that's what we're seeing with Rush et al. They don't want to lose their ratings swimming against the tide. Don't worry though, when the crucial time arrives, when Rand runs for President, they'll turn on him, as they did to Ron Paul. But in the meantime, enjoy the good press.
You could be right about that too.
I agree that when it gets serious, they will probably go all out against Rand.
Dogs are loyal. Rand endorsed Mittens over his father. The end.
what if Rand and Ron KNEW that without us mittens could NOT win? We said it, we hoped it, but, perhaps, they KNEW it. So, supporting mittens ONLY served to act as Rand's "buy in" to the ptb. He took the hit and the ends justify the means...?
They accepted his "conversion". Rand also went to is-hate-real and "bought in" to that. That gives one a LOT of capital around this country vis a vis the propaganda machine (limburger, shammity, etc.).
Now, everything else, we fight against. Sounds like a good place to define the middle to me. Anyone else see this? Agree? Disagree?
What are your thoughts, SH? Believe me, NO ONE hated Rand as much as me for "dissing" his father. Maybe, as much, but not more. They, Ron and Rand, HAD to see ahead, look ahead, and accept reality. Remember that "look" on Rand's face in the primaries when he could have bitten nails in two?
Maybe, just maybe, they began charting a "future" then, a future we are all living in now.
So basicly you say what if Ron and his son Rand are using stealth lieing. To acomplish the greater good.
I say if that was the case, which I dont think is true, all you are left with is two liars and no greater good.
If Rand is a huge lie to get inside the GOP, I dont want liars and I dont support. Next time things get tough he will just lie again, its so easy to a liar.
So was and is Rand a liar, endorsing Mittens or not? It dont matter to me, that endorsment sunk his ship in my swimming pool.
If they have to use lies to win its not winning its just lieing.
the Constitution and Bill of Rights know the power of the internet. As a result, they're very active at DP so I'm glad hawkiye is pointing this out. He's absolutely right about the establishment's fear of a united conservative, libertarian front because that's the greatest threat to Rockefeller Republicans.
History demonstrates that rigged electoral systems do not prevent revolutionary change, on the contrary, rigged systems spawn revolutionary change. Growing unity among libertarians and conservatives increases our ability to revolutionize tyrannical government, and implement the principles of limited Constitutional government.
http://www.dailypaul.com/277342 (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference)
http://www.standupforyourrights.me/?p=1264 (Resist gun control)
Who are working against Rand and trying to "subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights" and cite specific comments.
I'm absolutely sick of these blanketed accusations. I haven't seen any of the shit you guys are talking about.
All I see are a bunch of whiners looking for any rational to justify why they think Rand isn't getting the support they want him to have.
I could give an entire list of disagreements I have with Rand. None of them are listed by OP or you.
Please quote the supposed blanketed accusations in the OP? You can't it's a false construct of your own mind.
End The Fat
70 pounds lost and counting! Get in shape for the revolution!
People opposed to Rand as being neo-cons trying to cause divisiveness. That's a blanket accusation.
You were saying?
I'll list ALL the users and destroyers working to subvert the Constitution and the bill of rights; Liberals, Neocons, and Anarchists.
They are a trinity of destruction. Words have meaning, and if somebody calls themselves an Anarchist, they're adding themselves to that list and more openly than any liberal or Neocon. Liberals and Neocons at least have the good sense to know that they should be ashamed of what they are, but you have to hand it to the Anarchists, they're honest about what they are; users and destroyers.
When you look around at your neighbors and see sheep, retards, and imbeciles, it's just a matter of time until you become one too.
Unless you link profiles of users and comments they've made, you've got absolutely no evidence to support your argument.
If I say the grass is purple, would you believe that statement on its face or would you want...say, pictures to provide evidence of my claim?
I fall under the category of what OP would consider a "Rand-hater," but his description of the group that dislikes Rand does NOT describe me nor does it describe any other users I've seen complain about Rand.
Being an Anarchist requires a total commitment to denying objective reality.
Words have meaning, and if you call yourself an Anarchist, your agenda to to eliminate, to work against, to subvert the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.
I know you don't want that to be so obvious and need to hind behind blubbery, but Anarchism is an idea that suffocates under a mountain of it's own blubber.
"If I say the grass is purple, would you believe that statement on its face or would you want...say, pictures to provide evidence of my claim?"
Of course not, because like I just said, words have meaning, just not yours. You saying the grass is purple doesn't make the grass purple. It makes you a liar. There's a reason I can say Anarchists are liars, frauds, users, and destroyers, and there's a reason you can't do anything to stop me.
Here's the reason: "The grass is green."
For the love of God, here we go again. What exactly did I say that would make you think I was an anarchist? In these past several posts I haven't even given examples of my opinion on policies, but I'll list them for you.
I'm a firm believer in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'd like to see tax rates down to 0% and I support Ron Paul in every position he's ever taken.
Going back to the grass is purple comparison, I'd say that's as much of a lie as you claiming I'm an anarchist. Again, I ask, what ever possessed you to assume I am one? But you proved my point because I was making a ridiculous claim - one that I could not give evidence to prove. You made a ridiculous claim, but you were serious about it. Laughably, you also had no evidence to prove it.
"What exactly did I say that would make you think I was an anarchist?"
'Unless you link profiles of users and comments they've made, you've got absolutely no evidence to support your argument.'
When I see somebody trying to deny objective reality and defending Anarchists as something other than what they are, I have to assume you're an Anarchist. (Being an Anarchist requires a total commitment to denying objective reality)
I trust that people's eyes are open and can see for themselves. I'm not going to go pick through every comment ever made to prove Anarchists are what they say they there.
Words have meaning, just like the grass is green, and nobody is forced to call themselves an Anarchist. They CHOOSE to be Anarchists, and not all of them can be honest about what they are. Some know that they need to pretend to be something else. (people hate Anarchists and that doesn't lend well to using people who hate you)
I know that the grass is green because my eyes are open. It doesn't matter that the emperor claims he's wearing finery, the court can still see he's wearing no clothes.
If you aren't an Anarchist, why not? Whats wrong with Anarchism? Break it down for me.
"I support Ron Paul in every position he's ever taken."
Ron Paul is a Voluntarist who thinks you can opt out of society while still living in it, and any honest Anarchist will tell you that makes him an Anarchist. I don't support Ron Paul in every position he's ever taken. I'm no mind slave.
I want you to be the owner of your own mind, body and labor, and Ron Paul is wrong when he says his message is perfect, otherwise the world would be filled with Anarchists, but it's not. In fact, the world fully rejects Anarchism because buying into requires you deny the existence of what destroys it, that you hide your eyes to the truth, that you pretend the grass is purple.
Sorry, I need more than purple grass. I want the truth.
Sorry, I'm having a hard time finding any links to specific user profiles and the comments they've made that would prove the point that people opposed to Rand are neo-cons. The original issue I took with OP and Mark Hanson...
So hows it feel to have someone take what you said completely out of context create a false construct and then claim it is what you believe or have said? That's exactly what you did to me my friend.
Neo-con shills pushing hard to keep liberty movement divided over Rand
What did I accuse you of saying?
You were accusing people opposed to Rand as being neo-cons trying to cause divisiveness.
A near direct quote and yet you're accusing me of creating a false construct and claim.
Are you lacking in credibility or sense? I can't tell.
So you seriously cannot see that your false definition of my title is completely different then the title?... Sigh! And of course the OP gives the context of the title which clearly states not every one opposed rand is a shill.
Still you'd think most people would realize that not everyone opposed to Rand is a neocon shill. Just that some neocons are using the opposition to Rand to keep liberty minded folks divided. Which of course the OP also clarifies
Neocon shills pushing hard to keep liberty movement divided over Rand
Besides, I saw the thread when you originally created it. I know what it was before you changed it.
You're the one who chose to call themselves an Anarchist, not me. Words have meaning just like the grass is green. I didn't force anything onto you, nor did I create or define Anarchism.
I didn't make the grass green, but if your words are EVER going to promote reason and logic, they're going to have to mean something.