-55 votes

I think Rand is a slave to the GOP warmongers. Rand will simply survive and change NOTHING.

WE know this to be true. WE watched Ron Paul get laughed at by GOP leaders. WE witnessed Ron get ignored at the most recent convention. The system is corrupt and broken. WE are at war around the world. Keeping that game going is the top priority for the self appointed ruling class. Rand will do nothing. He will support what he is told to support. Period. It's time to grow up and stop putting your faith in individuals that get swallowed up by a nasty, violent, selfish, political system. Rand has been assimilated. MOVE ON.

Comment viewing options

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

actions speak louder than Ron's

words. Move on.

Rand has passed an industrial hemp bill in Kentucky

industrial hemp has been MY issue for decades.. so for me.. Rand delivered what no one in my lafe, including Ron Paul has.

Your top post is wrong about Rand.

Hemp is a free market issue

and a thumb in the eye of Monsatan. All the reasons they come up with not to grow hemp are completely bogus.

We need new crops to grow other than the two mono-culture crops and hemp will be a great rotational crop. Hemp is a heavy feeder needs lots of nitrogen, but suppresses weeds, their is no herbicide for hemp and no need for one. Since hemp flowers it has to be good for the honeybee.

Most everyone is for the free market deciding which crops are best to grow, here is one that would give Monsatan competition.

If Rand has pushed to get hemp approved, this alone should over shadow any of the bogus crap on this post.

Here is some info on hemp for others to see:


Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

weak bro!

totally pathetic remark. You have nothing to base your opinion on other than your "feelings." You're entitled to your own feelings and your own opinion, but, unless you are disclosing some relevant information or offering some genious new perspective, keep it to yourself.

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as 'free enterprise.' I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live..." - Robert A. Taft


keep voting citizens

Why don't you FrankOff dude.

Why don't you FrankOff dude.

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
-Sam Adams

Without Rand YOU would be a

Without Rand YOU would be a slave.


Nothing wrong with supporting Rand, but don't act as if all hope would be lost if it weren't for Rand Paul. You're speaking as if he's some sort of savior.

Also, in case people have forgotten: national elections will remain USELESS so long as our votes are tallied by easily hackable machines that don't give a print-out of one's vote.

A signature used to be here!


I'm sorry, but I count this as shilling. I hope Rand does the right thing up there, but all that really counts are his votes, not his rhetoric. Take a look at his voting record thus far, he's pretty much voted like a NEOCON.

I spit on the notion that I would be a slave without Rand Paul. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my life. Enough with this hero worship! He's just another man, no greater than you or me.

Ron Paul quote:

People try to drive a wedge in between Rand and me. Rand and I believe the same on 99% of the issues.


What say all Rand bashers now!

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

so all who disagree

with rand are bashers? or ron?

it's the man's son, of course he forgives him, that doesn't mean others
have to. ron may get to a point between now and 2016 that the percentage might have to drop.

Every candidate is not going to agree

with the liberty movement or Ron Paul a 100%. What is wrong with Rand if he gets you 90% of what you want. If we continue wanting perfection of every candidate there will be none to run under the liberty flag.

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

then so be it

i'm interested in a peace candidate and i haven't see that from rand. stop all wars and bring the troops home.


Well that's it then, huh? After all, if Ron Paul said it, then that's it; no further discussion allowed. For liberty!

I can already see it now: every time someone points out anything about Rand, no matter how valid, the "b-but Ron Paul says you're trying to divide!" card is going to be played.

Like I've said, I see nothing "wrong" with supporting or not supporting Rand, and the only division that's being created is by the people who bicker endlessly over how pro-person is this and how anti-person is that. It's no different than the red team/blue team nonsense that so many here claim to despise.

A signature used to be here!

You stated a "problem"

now where's your solution? Who's your candidate of choice for 2016? If not Rand, who do YOU want people to pay attention to?

Troll post, imo.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Here's one for you newbies...



The only way Rand becomes president, is if he becomes the enemy. I'm sorry, if there was a chance, his dad would have won.

Newbie = me?

Were you talking to me or to the OP?

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

SteveMT's picture

If Rand is just a puppet, explain the drone filibuster.

Rand made both sides of the isle out to be hypocrites over that 13 hour filibuster. A puppet or a slave would not have done that. In addition, Rand has already accomplished much by thwarting several unconstitutional bills and exposing them for what they represent. He is after all only in his third year in the Senate. By waking up some people, he already has accomplished much, IMO. In any case, just watching him 'stir the pot' in that chamber of lies and deceit sure is a lot of fun.

I'm not saying he's a "puppet"

The drone filibuster is irrelevant. That happened before his more recent statements. In my opinion what a politician said BEFORE, has little effect upon what they're saying NOW. He is now saying that he supports the use of weaponized drones on US citizens (if there's a warrant and it's legal). That is absolutely unacceptable, it's the furthest thing from "libertarian"... that's straight up fascist s*** right there.

He also...

Used the exact same liquor store example in order to argue against the use of targeted assassinations by drones during the filibuster... constitutionally speaking armed drones aren't illegal so as long as they're not used to infringe upon our rights then why does it matter? You even said it your self when you said, "as long as there's a warrant and it's LEGAL" lol. Quit being such a luddite.


I was speaking with tongue in cheek.

I believe that what Rand Paul is describing as a "legitimate, constitutional" use of drones in America, is in fact, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The fact is, they're already being used to infringe on our rights. The bill that just passed here in Florida doesn't do anything to stop drones from being used to spy on or attack citizens. In fact, it authorizes the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (DHS, et al) to use drones ANYWAY THEY WANT!

Even if you have a warrant, that doesn't make it constitutional to fire on American Citizens from drones? Using your logic should the US Military be allowed to bomb it's own citizens from manned aircraft, as long as there's a warrant. This is ridiculous. I don't care how many warrants you have, I don't want drones targeting my nextdoor neighbor because he stole 50 bucks. Wake up people!

MOVE ON??!..Yes...move on, move along

...nothing to see here but a three month troll blowing off some steam.

...I know...don't feed the trolls...

FrankOff?...weren't you once called "Jack"?

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Who's "we"?

Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

Rand will get my vote in 2016 and I will volunteer for his election campaign, Lord willing.


Jamie Kerchick, Eric Dondero, and Hags for Hilary.

Eric Dondero!

LOL I forgot about him.

You sounds exactly like...

You sound exactly like the people who got Obama elected, and then reelected. For example, pro-marijuana legalization folks used to tell me "I'm gonna vote for Obama because he's going to legalize pot", and I'd say, but you do realize he's said he doesn't support legalization and he actually wants tougher drug laws. Of course, their response would be, "oh he's just playing that game so he can win the election, once he gets in, he's going to legalize it baby!"... so much for that.

Here's another example, how about all those people who said, "I'm going to vote for Obama because he's going to end all these wars" and then after getting him elected, and reelected, we have more wars and more police state... I could go on, but do you see where I'm coming from?

Don't be surprised when you spend all your time, effort, and money to get Rand elected, and then he does the opposite of everything you wanted.

Are you familiar with the phrase, "cult of personality". Just because he's the son of Ron Paul DOES NOT mean that he is going to stick up for freedom and liberty in DC. Continuing to insist that he is, and will, doesn't change the fact that so far he's done little to stand up for our freedoms. When you put all your faith in one politician, you're bound to get burned. Just ask all those people who thought Obama was going to legalize pot, end the wars, and legalize gay marriage.

And you "sounds" exactly like...

...someone who doesn't like Rand because of his stand on social issues. Am I correct?

To all anti-Rand people: You're wasting your time trying to sway others your way. The anti-Rand liberals are and will remain a very tiny minority in the GOP primaries.


I never said I don't like Rand. I f***ing donated to Rand's campaign because I had high hopes for him when he was running.

I am objecting to his *new* stance that it is ok for the police, and US Military to use weaponized drones against American civilians.

If its not...

against the law then why does it matter? Especially if it's in the process of killing an armed individual with murderous intentions? No where in the constitution does it say what type of "arms" a person can own so as long as they're used in a manner that doesn't infringe upon our rights then who cares. Are you against police using a gun to take down an armed and dangerous criminal? Your sounding like quite the luddite...