View Full Version : Rand Paul's Base Is Broader Than Any Republican In Modern Times
Chris
04-10-2015, 06:05 PM
What I like most about Rand Paul is he sets himself against the Republican establishment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lc9BGOYkgy4&feature=youtu.be
Is there any Democrat like that?
GrassrootsConservative
04-10-2015, 06:45 PM
Sure, in rhetoric only. Obama told us he was different and then proved to be more of the same.
This will sound like I don't like Rand Paul but he is a republican Obama.
Chris
04-10-2015, 07:30 PM
Sure, in rhetoric only. Obama told us he was different and then proved to be more of the same.
The far left doesn't like him.
Chris
04-10-2015, 07:30 PM
This will sound like I don't like Rand Paul but he is a republican Obama.
Yet, as the videos makes a major point, he criticized Obama on killing an American with a drone.
Common
04-10-2015, 07:45 PM
The NRA has already dropped him and his plea for minority support has failed.
This has just begun, only two have declared they are running. The gop lineup is going to be bigger than in 2012 and when push comes to shove and primary day gets closer, they will rip each others eyes out.
Its looking like hillary will have opposition and they will be doing the same thing
donttread
04-10-2015, 08:15 PM
What is Rand Paul's platform? The Constitution. Something that scares liberals and neocons alike to death
Yet, as the videos makes a major point, he criticized Obama on killing an American with a drone.
I am not discussing that part. I am saying he is a Senator. Their responsibility as we know of Obama is not good training to be the most senior Federal administrator.
Paul differs from Obama ideology but has no hands on experience.
When I fly, I demand the pilot is an expert.
Why less from any president?
Chris
04-10-2015, 08:27 PM
I am not discussing that part. I am saying he is a Senator. Their responsibility as we know of Obama is not good training to be the most senior Federal administrator.
Paul differs from Obama ideology but has no hands on experience.
When I fly, I demand the pilot is an expert.
Why less from any president?
There's no qualification for being president as you imagine. What you want a president capable of running a big, strong dictatorial government? That's the opposite of what we need. We need someone to tear down the establishment and establismentatians.
There's no qualification for being president as you imagine. What you want a president capable of running a big, strong dictatorial government? That's the opposite of what we need. We need someone to tear down the establishment and establismentatians.
I realize the bar is super low to be president, but I like experience. We have a better chance to get a decent president.
Are you defending both Obama and Rand?
Both barely qualified.
Common
04-10-2015, 08:30 PM
What is Rand Paul's platform? The Constitution. Something that scares liberals and neocons alike to death
Hes a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and who knows what his foreign policy he changes it everytime hes asked
Common
04-10-2015, 08:32 PM
There's no qualification for being president as you imagine. What you want a president capable of running a big, strong dictatorial government? That's the opposite of what we need. We need someone to tear down the establishment and establismentatians.
Thats not going to happen and you know it, all the big money is spent making more money for big money. Big money is not going to allow any changes unless they make them more money.
Chris
04-10-2015, 08:33 PM
Thats not going to happen and you know it, all the big money is spent making more money for big money. Big money is not going to allow any changes unless they make them more money.
You misspelled big government. Big government protects big money.
The Xl
04-10-2015, 08:36 PM
Rand is a fraud
Common
04-10-2015, 08:40 PM
Rand is a fraud
I agree and the more he talks the more people realize it. I respected his father for standing by what he believed, even when I disagreed with him
Common
04-10-2015, 08:41 PM
You misspelled big government. Big government protects big money.
Big money buys big govt and owns big govt.
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 08:43 PM
Sure, in rhetoric only. Obama told us he was different and then proved to be more of the same.
In action he's anti-establishment too. The evidence is the fact that the GOP establishment has gone so far to oppose him as to support Democrats in general elections just to stonewall him.
If Lindsey Graham hates him, he must be good stuff.
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 08:45 PM
Rand is a fraud
A fraud that has everyone in the GOP establishment and the media going out strong against him before he even announces?
Sure.
The Xl
04-10-2015, 08:57 PM
A fraud that has everyone in the GOP establishment and the media going out strong against him before he even announces?
Sure.
Based on his flip flops and his spotty record, he's clearly a fraud
Not being the gops preferred candidate doesn't make him not a fraud
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 09:02 PM
Based on his flip flops and his spotty record, he's clearly a fraud
Not being the gops preferred candidate doesn't make him not a fraud
His record is fine and his flip-flops are a necessity. And even if he isn't pure as the driven snow, who cares? I'd rather take baby steps in the right direction than more giant leaps in the wrong direction. I'm sick and tired of losing.
Peter1469
04-10-2015, 09:09 PM
Go Rand. Ignore the establishment. They are sheep.
http://torahinmotion.org/sites/default/files/50_asian_experiences_sheep.jpg
The Xl
04-10-2015, 09:16 PM
His record is fine and his flip-flops are a necessity. And even if he isn't pure as the driven snow, who cares? I'd rather take baby steps in the right direction than more giant leaps in the wrong direction. I'm sick and tired of losing.
The same lesser of two evils logic both sides always offer.
He won't be giving you anything different
Common
04-10-2015, 09:21 PM
His record is fine and his flip-flops are a necessity. And even if he isn't pure as the driven snow, who cares? I'd rather take baby steps in the right direction than more giant leaps in the wrong direction. I'm sick and tired of losing.
His record is not fine and that is apparent to everyone. You cant have a "fine" record when you change it at your convenience. If his flipflops which are veiled lies are a necessity for rand paul then no one has a right to condemn anyone else for flipflopping and changing their stance depending on what audience they are talking too.
If he doesnt get a grip on his hissy fits everytime hes asked questions about his flipflopping and record hes going to diminish himself into coming in near the last in the primary.
A fraud that has everyone in the GOP establishment and the media going out strong against him before he even announces?
Sure.
If being 35 is all it takes to be president, Rand is qualified.
His record is not fine and that is apparent to everyone. You cant have a "fine" record when you change it at your convenience. If his flipflops which are veiled lies are a necessity for rand paul then no one has a right to condemn anyone else for flipflopping and changing their stance depending on what audience they are talking too.
If he doesnt get a grip on his hissy fits everytime hes asked questions about his flipflopping and record hes going to diminish himself into coming in near the last in the primary.
At the moment, Scott Walker is still my choice.
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 09:24 PM
The same lesser of two evils logic both sides always offer.
He won't be giving you anything different
I believe he will. I think if you looked at this logically, you'd come to the same conclusion. It's not difficult.
The Xl
04-10-2015, 09:24 PM
The guy just proposed increasing the defense budget, which is not only stunningly big government and anti libertarian, but a flip flop of his prior position. He's also flipped on Israeli financial aid, Iranian sanctions, among other things.
He's a clear fraud, and it's shocking how so many intelligent people are being duped.
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 09:24 PM
His record is not fine and that is apparent to everyone. You cant have a "fine" record when you change it at your convenience. If his flipflops which are veiled lies are a necessity for rand paul then no one has a right to condemn anyone else for flipflopping and changing their stance depending on what audience they are talking too.
If he doesnt get a grip on his hissy fits everytime hes asked questions about his flipflopping and record hes going to diminish himself into coming in near the last in the primary.
You are vastly over-exaggerating. He's flip-flopped on a couple foreign policy positions and that's about it.
You are vastly over-exaggerating. He's flip-flopped on a couple foreign policy positions and that's about it.
Just weeks before announcing his 2016 presidential bid, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is completing an about-face on a longstanding pledge to curb the growth in defense spending.
In an olive branch to defense hawks hell-bent on curtailing his White House ambitions, the libertarian Senator introduced a budget amendment late Wednesday calling for a nearly $190 billion infusion to the defense budget over the next two years—a roughly 16 percent increase.
http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 09:30 PM
The guy just proposed increasing the defense budget, which is not only stunningly big government and anti libertarian, but a flip flop of his prior position. He's also flipped on Israeli financial aid, Iranian sanctions, among other things.
He's a clear fraud, and it's shocking how so many intelligent people are being duped.
I'm not being duped, I'm just looking at this strategically. If Rand Paul is a complete and total Judas (and as I've said, there's absolutely zero reason to think he is), what do we lose? There are no Ron Pauls running in 2016 and neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein are going to be President come January 17, 2017. We're going to get stuck with establishment from one side or the other regardless, so why not take a chance on Rand Paul? If he's dirty, we get the same thing we would have gotten anyway. If he isn't dirty, we get a vast improvement from what we would have had.
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 09:30 PM
http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
Yep, that's one of them. Is there a point in there somewhere?
The Xl
04-10-2015, 09:31 PM
http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
But.....but....He's different....
A lot of people have faith in him because of his dads legacy and character. He's not his dad.
The Xl
04-10-2015, 09:34 PM
I'm not being duped, I'm just looking at this strategically. If Rand Paul is a complete and total Judas (and as I've said, there's absolutely zero reason to think he is), what do we lose? There are no Ron Pauls running in 2016 and neither Gary Johnson nor Jill Stein are going to be President come January 17, 2017. We're going to get stuck with establishment from one side or the other regardless, so why not take a chance on Rand Paul? If he's dirty, we get the same thing we would have gotten anyway. If he isn't dirty, we get a vast improvement from what we would have had.
There is nothing to suggest his flip flops are any different than the likes of the mitt romneys of the world other than blind faith in his father and his last name
Yep, that's one of them. Is there a point in there somewhere?
not enough of one to overpower the koolaid, apparently
carry on
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 09:36 PM
There is nothing to suggest his flip flops are any different than the likes of the mitt romneys of the world other than blind faith in his father and his last name
What has he flip-flopped on? List it.
And keep in mind, before you continue to insult my intelligence, I'm not denying he has flip-flopped. I'm not asking for a list to prove he's flip-flopped, I'm asking for a list because when you present it, my point will be obvious.
But.....but....He's different....
A lot of people have faith in him because of his dads legacy and character. He's not his dad.
frankly, i thought his dad was full of shit too.
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 09:37 PM
not enough of one to overpower the koolaid, apparently
carry on
Or your apparent lack of reading comprehension.
Somehow "he has flip-flopped on a couple issues" translated to "he has never flip-flopped" in your mind.
Or your apparent lack of reading comprehension.
Somehow "he has flip-flopped on a couple issues" translated to "he has never flip-flopped" in your mind.
somehow increasing defense spending 190 billion equates to no big deal in yours.
young love
*shrug
The Xl
04-10-2015, 09:44 PM
What has he flip-flopped on? List it.
And keep in mind, before you continue to insult my intelligence, I'm not denying he has flip-flopped. I'm not asking for a list to prove he's flip-flopped, I'm asking for a list because when you present it, my point will be obvious.
That's going to be difficult over the phone, but he's flipped completely on foreign policy, and lets be honest, he'll lobby for austerity cuts, but he's not touching banks, the military industrial complex, corporate America at large.
He'll go hard at lower class folk and that'll be that. That alone doesn't make a good libertarian or a worthy candidate. We'll still be on the same old bullshit in the middle east.
Your point doesn't hold water because his flips are rather significant.
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 09:44 PM
somehow increasing defense spending 190 billion equates to no big deal in yours.
young love
*shrug
Considering our other option was increasing defense spending by a hell of a lot more than 190 billion, I call that compromise.
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 09:46 PM
That's going to be difficult over the phone, but he's flipped completely on foreign policy, and lets be honest, he'll lobby for austerity cuts, but he's not touching banks, the military industrial complex, corporate America at large.
He'll go hard at lower class folk and that'll be that. That alone doesn't make a good libertarian or a worthy candidate. We'll still be on the same old bullshit in the middle east.
Your point doesn't hold water because his flips are rather significant.
Let's try it this way, then.
Has he flip-flopped on ending the Fed?
Has he flip-flopped on repealing the PATRIOT Act?
Has he flip-flopped on ending the drug war?
Has he flip-flopped on reforming the criminal justice system and ending mandatory minimum sentencing?
Has he flip-flopped on drones?
Start there.
Considering our other option was increasing defense spending by a hell of a lot more than 190 billion, I call that compromise.
he's certainly compromised
The Xl
04-10-2015, 09:51 PM
Let's try it this way, then.
Has he flip-flopped on ending the Fed?
Has he flip-flopped on repealing the PATRIOT Act?
Has he flip-flopped on ending the drug war?
Has he flip-flopped on reforming the criminal justice system and ending mandatory minimum sentencing?
Has he flip-flopped on drones?
Start there.
He's flipped or been unclear on some of those, you'll have to wait until I get to a computer to source them.
The Xl
04-10-2015, 09:52 PM
frankly, i thought his dad was full of shit too.
Say what you will, his record and statements remained consistent
Common
04-10-2015, 09:58 PM
The guy just proposed increasing the defense budget, which is not only stunningly big government and anti libertarian, but a flip flop of his prior position. He's also flipped on Israeli financial aid, Iranian sanctions, among other things.
He's a clear fraud, and it's shocking how so many intelligent people are being duped.
Exactly he stated Iran was not a threat, now it is a threat any politician that flipflops gives the public the idea he cant be trusted. Rand Paul is no different.
I dont think he has a chance but im wrong alot too. In NH hes running well behind Scott Walker and Jeb.
If rand paul were to win the primary, I dont see how he can take fla and california and without the two of them he cant win.
Common
04-10-2015, 10:01 PM
frankly, i thought his dad was full of shit too.
I didnt agree with his fathers politics, but I respected him. No matter what he stood by what he believed in, no matter how he got hammered for it.
Rand gives me the impression he would throw all his politics and views out the window if it would guarantee him Potus.
Say what you will, his record and statements remained consistent
i agree with that completely
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 10:44 PM
Exactly he stated Iran was not a threat, now it is a threat any politician that flipflops gives the public the idea he cant be trusted. Rand Paul is no different.
I dont think he has a chance but im wrong alot too. In NH hes running well behind Scott Walker and Jeb.
If rand paul were to win the primary, I dont see how he can take fla and california and without the two of them he cant win.
He said Iran wasn't a threat in 2007. He said Iran was a threat in 2015.
Again, I've acknowledged he's flip-flopped, but that's an extremely weak case to site. The Soviet Union was no threat to the U.S. in 1939, but after World War II, just six years later, the Soviet Union became our biggest threat.
Not that I personally think Iran reaches that level. Just saying that's not so much a flip-flop as some of the other cases.
Common
04-10-2015, 10:50 PM
He said Iran wasn't a threat in 2007. He said Iran was a threat in 2015.
Again, I've acknowledged he's flip-flopped, but that's an extremely weak case to site. The Soviet Union was no threat to the U.S. in 1939, but after World War II, just six years later, the Soviet Union became our biggest threat.
Not that I personally think Iran reaches that level. Just saying that's not so much a flip-flop as some of the other cases.
I agree that the iran thing could be a reasonable change of heart. I did read though the problem some have with that is that most many believed Iran was more a threat in 2007.
Aside from that theres been many others with Paul GA. Hes got to go the right to win the republican primary. Hes got alot of social questions to answer during the primary that havent even surfaced yet but you can bet they will especially during the debates. I truly dont see how he can possibly win the primary. I think he has a better chance to win the General election than he does the primary
Green Arrow
04-10-2015, 11:32 PM
I agree that the iran thing could be a reasonable change of heart. I did read though the problem some have with that is that most many believed Iran was more a threat in 2007.
Aside from that theres been many others with Paul GA. Hes got to go the right to win the republican primary. Hes got alot of social questions to answer during the primary that havent even surfaced yet but you can bet they will especially during the debates. I truly dont see how he can possibly win the primary. I think he has a better chance to win the General election than he does the primary
I think he can win the primary, but it will be tough. I believe Ted Cruz is only running to dig into his base of support.
Anyway, the issue of flip-flops is ridiculous. All politicians flip-flop when it comes to presidential elections. They have to. It's like trying to play Monopoly without collecting your $200 when you pass Go. You have to play the game to win the game, and I want my guy to win the game for once, goddammit.
Common
04-10-2015, 11:36 PM
I think he can win the primary, but it will be tough. I believe Ted Cruz is only running to dig into his base of support.
Anyway, the issue of flip-flops is ridiculous. All politicians flip-flop when it comes to presidential elections. They have to. It's like trying to play Monopoly without collecting your $200 when you pass Go. You have to play the game to win the game, and I want my guy to win the game for once, goddammit.
True, but Rands problem hes purposely had his face in the limelight since he became senator, hes been an attention whore to gain notoriety. Hes run around giving public statements and speechs that are all on tape. Ted Cruz the same, the other candidates not so much. Rand and Cruz have alot more baggage in the flip flop statements made dept. His other pitfall they can easily get him all ruffled and thats not going to play well. He hasnt even started to be questioned and harrangued on past statements or his social stances which Ill bet hes going to flipflop on or lose the primary. Hes got a mountain to climb
Peter1469
04-11-2015, 12:51 AM
Rand is much better than all the other options.
zelmo1234
04-11-2015, 01:53 AM
His record is not fine and that is apparent to everyone. You cant have a "fine" record when you change it at your convenience. If his flipflops which are veiled lies are a necessity for rand paul then no one has a right to condemn anyone else for flipflopping and changing their stance depending on what audience they are talking too.
If he doesnt get a grip on his hissy fits everytime hes asked questions about his flipflopping and record hes going to diminish himself into coming in near the last in the primary.
I think that this will not be a big issue in this election.
Hilary, the likely candidate for the democrats, has the same iffliction.
Gay Marriage Changed
Middle East policy, changed.
Fossil Fuels, changed
Wars Changed.
Spending Changed.
So this election it will be hard for the media to exploit that!
zelmo1234
04-11-2015, 01:55 AM
Rand is much better than all the other options.
I have him Second on my list. But I think that he is the perfect VP for Walker.
Chris
04-11-2015, 06:11 AM
I realize the bar is super low to be president, but I like experience. We have a better chance to get a decent president.
Are you defending both Obama and Rand?
Both barely qualified.
Experience at what?
Are you defending both Obama and Rand?
Didn't you watch the video? Rand criticize Obama's use of a drone to kill an American.
Chris
04-11-2015, 06:12 AM
Thats not going to happen and you know it, all the big money is spent making more money for big money. Big money is not going to allow any changes unless they make them more money.
Your populist vision always omits the middle man, government.
Chris
04-11-2015, 06:13 AM
Big money buys big govt and owns big govt.
Again, your populist view fails to see the power of government.
Common
04-11-2015, 07:01 AM
Again, your populist view fails to see the power of government.
Again you fail to own up to the govt is of money and from money and money buys govt and runs it.
Chris
04-11-2015, 07:26 AM
Again you fail to own up to the govt is of money and from money and money buys govt and runs it.
Please don't make things up. Government sells out to the highest bidder. This I have always said. The collusion of government and business is the problem. This I have always seen. Don't make it up I don't.
You otoh only blame money, never power. But money can't force people to do things, power can.
midcan5
04-11-2015, 07:35 AM
Rand Paul adds another minor character to the mix. Most are too young to remember when the republican party had real statesmen, today it has the circus jokers who tell jokes only the insiders understand. And then they all try to appeal to a base of conspiratorial nutcases who see the end coming soon. Rand's base though sings that tune, 'all you need is markets and freedom, all you need....' Should be fun to watch, the debates, even with the party wanting to keep them to a minimum, should be great comedy. The twisting and turning and hand raising in unison to insanity would confuse Shakespeare. Let the play begin....
Matty
04-11-2015, 07:40 AM
Rand Paul adds another minor character to the mix. Most are too young to remember when the republican party had real statesmen, today it has the circus jokers who tell jokes only the insiders understand. And then they all try to appeal to a base of conspiratorial nutcases who see the end coming soon. Rand's base though sings that tune, 'all you need is markets and freedom, all you need....' Should be fun to watch, the debates, even with the party wanting to keep them to a minimum, should be great comedy. The twisting and turning and hand raising in unison to insanity would confuse Shakespeare. Let the play begin....
We know! This year's lunacy from the democrats is to call Republicans clowns. You have zero introspection. Oh the irony.
Peter1469
04-11-2015, 08:01 AM
Rand Paul adds another minor character to the mix. Most are too young to remember when the republican party had real statesmen, today it has the circus jokers who tell jokes only the insiders understand. And then they all try to appeal to a base of conspiratorial nutcases who see the end coming soon. Rand's base though sings that tune, 'all you need is markets and freedom, all you need....' Should be fun to watch, the debates, even with the party wanting to keep them to a minimum, should be great comedy. The twisting and turning and hand raising in unison to insanity would confuse Shakespeare. Let the play begin....
You have clowns on your side.
I supported Paul's campaign today. He is the anti-establishment candidate.
zelmo1234
04-11-2015, 08:04 AM
It has been a while since either side had a statesman. If they are calling Obama a statesman, then I don't want anymore of them, Look at the results! You can't point to any success.
kilgram
04-11-2015, 08:41 AM
Please don't make things up. Government sells out to the highest bidder. This I have always said. The collusion of government and business is the problem. This I have always seen. Don't make it up I don't.
You otoh only blame money, never power. But money can't force people to do things, power can.
Money is power. So, you're failing to attack one of the powers, and the greatest power that rules today: the money.
Corporations rule over government, not the opposite. They are your hated government in the shadow. Government must submit themselves to the will of corporations, who are the ones which have the money: the real power.
How the world works today. Trading favors. I give you money in exchange you do what I ask you to do. It is free market.
Chris
04-11-2015, 08:42 AM
Money is power.
Money can buy power from corrupt government. Otherwise it's only value is in spending it, investing it.
Chris
04-11-2015, 08:43 AM
Rand Paul adds another minor character to the mix. Most are too young to remember when the republican party had real statesmen, today it has the circus jokers who tell jokes only the insiders understand. And then they all try to appeal to a base of conspiratorial nutcases who see the end coming soon. Rand's base though sings that tune, 'all you need is markets and freedom, all you need....' Should be fun to watch, the debates, even with the party wanting to keep them to a minimum, should be great comedy. The twisting and turning and hand raising in unison to insanity would confuse Shakespeare. Let the play begin....
I should have just started a thread titled Rand Paul. I mean why state in the OP what the topic is.
Chris
04-11-2015, 08:46 AM
Money is power. So, you're failing to attack one of the powers, and the greatest power that rules today: the money.
Corporations rule over government, not the opposite. They are your hated government in the shadow. Government must submit themselves to the will of corporations, who are the ones which have the money: the real power.
How the world works today. Trading favors. I give you money in exchange you do what I ask you to do. It is free market.
Why, like common, make things up? If I say "Government sells out to the highest bidder. This I have always said. The collusion of government and business is the problem. This I have always seen." then I am criticising both.
And despite your special definition, wealth is not power.
Corporations rule over government....
Explain how that is possible.
donttread
04-11-2015, 08:54 AM
Why, like common, make things up? If I say "Government sells out to the highest bidder. This I have always said. The collusion of government and business is the problem. This I have always seen." then I am criticising both.
And despite your special definition, wealth is not power.
Explain how that is possible.
Just look at our world, at who votes for what , at how long it took the government to warn you about tobacco, at what Monsanto is doing to your food, at wars fought over Exxon imperialism. The proof is all around you
Chris
04-11-2015, 08:59 AM
Just look at our world, at who votes for what , at how long it took the government to warn you about tobacco, at what Monsanto is doing to your food, at wars fought over Exxon imperialism. The proof is all around you
I don't doubt that a corrupt government will sell us out. But the wealthy have no power but through government.
birddog
04-11-2015, 09:23 AM
This will sound like I don't like Rand Paul but he is a republican Obama.
I have to disagree here. All presidents usually wind up doing things conservative don't like, but to imply Paul is similar to Obama is simply not true. The differences are obvious.
Ehhh.. he's got some 'splainin to do.
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/meet-the-press-24-7/rand-paul-has-his-own-history-flip-flops-n337326
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCOro7CUEAEl72Q.jpg
Kurmugeon
04-11-2015, 09:50 AM
Going by the list of nasty forum posters who seem to hate Rand Paul, I think he's the best candidate for President we've seen since Reagan.
-
Mr. Right
04-11-2015, 09:51 AM
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7-NUan7xLBU-TNJEgS5EEseKOmnlHKAoszk-jI0C2YfBk-OneGQ
Chris
04-11-2015, 09:56 AM
Going by the list of nasty forum posters who seem to hate Rand Paul, I think he's the best candidate for President we've seen since Reagan.
-
Just mention of his name sure seems to get a rise out of people.
Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul Rand Paul :evil:
Peter1469
04-11-2015, 09:58 AM
Going by the list of nasty forum posters who seem to hate Rand Paul, I think he's the best candidate for President we've seen since Reagan.
-
Agreed. The bed wetters are going to piss in the bed however.
Just laugh at them.
Going by the list of nasty forum posters who seem to hate Rand Paul, I think he's the best candidate for President we've seen since Reagan.
-
I don't hate Rand Paul. In fact, i find him remarkably sane, especially when it comes to non-interventionism.
But Commander in Chief material?
Verdict's still out on that one.
Chris
04-11-2015, 10:50 AM
I don't hate Rand Paul. In fact, i find him remarkably sane, especially when it comes to non-interventionism.
But Commander in Chief material?
Verdict's still out on that one.
What is CinC material?
What is CinC material?
Someone without anger or misogynistic issues.. i suspect that Rand has at minimum a mild case of each.
Howey
04-11-2015, 10:59 AM
Of course Paul's got a large base. He supports everything and is against everything. He is Mitt 2016 fer shure! Only problem is his base is one hundreth the size of Hillary's.
Peter1469
04-11-2015, 11:06 AM
Hillary is going to be in jail.
Chris
04-11-2015, 11:13 AM
Of course Paul's got a large base. He supports everything and is against everything. He is Mitt 2016 fer shure! Only problem is his base is one hundreth the size of Hillary's.
By that reasoning you could also say he's Obama 2016. For sure.
Chris
04-11-2015, 11:13 AM
Someone without anger or misogynistic issues.. i suspect that Rand has at minimum a mild case of each.
Why's that?
Peter1469
04-11-2015, 11:29 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bo-4 http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1040343#post1040343)
Someone without anger or misogynistic issues.. i suspect that Rand has at minimum a mild case of each.
Why's that?
He is just assassinating Paul's character. No person believes that tripe.
The hard left is on the ropes.
Chris
04-11-2015, 11:38 AM
Rope-a-dope.
I have to disagree here. All presidents usually wind up doing things conservative don't like, but to imply Paul is similar to Obama is simply not true. The differences are obvious.
Cool
This shows when people do not agree with me, I don't fly off the handle.
Choices
I can ask him what he means
He can ask me what I mean
I can simply tell him why i said that
I said it because both were or are Senators having little experience.
Rand has more time in the Senate and like Obama not a bit managing government.
Some tell me, the constitution only says the person has to meet bare requirements, age and citizenship.
To me, if you run any country, there are skill sets to have. Some manage a city and you would not accept them to be president.
I don't accept people to be president who have less experience than Mayors have.
Rand and Obama never managed anything other than Rand managed his own eye surgery practice. Eye surgeons are wonderful as is Rand. I like Rand in fact. I don't say this to smear the man.
When we need a good eye surgeon, he is our man. Also I like the job he has done as a Senator.
We need a person like Walker or for that matter Bush. Both understand government. We have some outstanding republicans to vote for. Let's raise the bar, not lower the bar.
Democrats as we know lowered the bar.
Why's that?
His recent interviews with female reporters were sufficient to prove both.
And he admits it.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/election-2016-rand-paul-south-carolina/
Green Arrow
04-11-2015, 11:54 AM
I don't hate Rand Paul. In fact, i find him remarkably sane, especially when it comes to non-interventionism.
But Commander in Chief material?
Verdict's still out on that one.
Considering our post-WWII Commander-in-Chiefs, I don't think it really matters anymore.
Green Arrow
04-11-2015, 11:54 AM
His recent interviews with female reporters were sufficient to prove both.
So he's a man-hater too?
So he's a man-hater too?
That's what he claims. However, he's had more issues with the gals.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/election-2016-rand-paul-south-carolina/
Green Arrow
04-11-2015, 11:59 AM
That's what he claims. However, he's had more issues with the gals.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/08/politics/election-2016-rand-paul-south-carolina/
There's no evidence of that. Particularly at your link.
There's no evidence of that. Particularly at your link.
Hmmm, would you like the two interviews? Maybe you can find him testier with a male interviewer?
NOT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wOiROT8QWU&spfreload=10
AND there was this one. SHHHH!!! :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWcDDZ1w38&spfreload=10
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1039885#post1039885)
I realize the bar is super low to be president, but I like experience. We have a better chance to get a decent president.
Are you defending both Obama and Rand?
Both barely qualified.
Experience at what?
Didn't you watch the video? Rand criticize Obama's use of a drone to kill an American.
Chris, for my sake, don't bust up my comments.
It forces me to do a lot more work to simply try to reply to you. I can handle long posts.
What experience you ask? My god, I have spoken and spoken what I mean by experiences. The constitution has the bare minimum for president. I seek far higher qualifications.
Why is that Bob.
Because we can look at the events during a Governors period. If the guy was good at fixing things, we can see it going on. Governors can make local changes. If all they pull is a dividing tactic, that will show up. We both know that Obama took over and promptly moved into a dividing tactic. He flaunted his office to the congress. Supposedly by being elected, he is totally in charge of the USA.
Had he been a Governor first, we would have seen him doing it and realized he would keep doing it as president.
Governors not only show us their good points, but the bad points.
Rand by complaining over Drones only shows he can complain.
Rand like Obama has no proven record as a good Governor or a bad one.
Senators in general make lousy presidents.
Chris
04-11-2015, 12:17 PM
Chris, for my sake, don't bust up my comments.
It forces me to do a lot more work to simply try to reply to you. I can handle long posts.
What experience you ask? My god, I have spoken and spoken what I mean by experiences. The constitution has the bare minimum for president. I seek far higher qualifications.
Because we can look at the events during a Governors period. If the guy was good at fixing things, we can see it going on. Governors can make local changes. If all they pull is a dividing tactic, that will show up. We both know that Obama took over and promptly moved into a dividing tactic. He flaunted his office to the congress. Supposedly by being elected, he is totally in charge of the USA.
Had he been a Governor first, we would have seen him doing it and realized he would keep doing it as president.
Governors not only show us their good points, but the bad points.
Rand by complaining over Drones only shows he can complain.
Rand like Obama has no proven record as a good Governor or a bad one.
Senators in general make lousy presidents.
By Constitution Rand Paul qualifies.
My question was what higher qualifications would you impose?
Was Romney a good governor? No.
Green Arrow
04-11-2015, 12:26 PM
Hmmm, would you like the two interviews? Maybe you can find him testier with a male interviewer?
NOT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wOiROT8QWU&spfreload=10
AND there was this one. SHHHH!!! :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWcDDZ1w38&spfreload=10
Rand Paul gets testy with male AP reporter (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-ap-abortion-rights)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XZwD0FXT14
There's 2-for-2.
Chris
04-11-2015, 12:28 PM
AND there was this one. SHHHH!!! :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWcDDZ1w38&spfreload=10
Strange, you say nothing about the misleading questions.
AND there was this one. SHHHH!!! :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWcDDZ1w38&spfreload=10
Just to lay out your own position,
What if she did that to Obama?
Do you support her tactics or would you back Obama?
By Constitution Rand Paul qualifies.
My question was what higher qualifications would you impose?
Was Romney a good governor? No.
He is a bare qualifier.
Please read my posts because I told you what higher qualifications I would impose as well as why. These have impact on me and not you. You have your own standards. If you are happy with bare minimum, fine with me. I simply was not able to persuade you how important the job of president is.
I believe in MA, Romney was a good governor. He took a state of Democrats and worked effectively with them. He understood why states were part of the Government. States can experiment.
Green Arrow
04-11-2015, 12:41 PM
George Washington was a General, plantation owner, and land surveyor.
John Adams was a lawyer and a farmer.
Thomas Jefferson was a diplomat, linguist, farmer, writer, inventor, architect, and land surveyor.
James Madison was a farmer.
James Monroe was a farmer and lawyer.
The founders and first presidents of this country were not politicians, they were, by and large, ordinary citizens.
Chris
04-11-2015, 12:41 PM
He is a bare qualifier.
Please read my posts because I told you what higher qualifications I would impose as well as why. These have impact on me and not you. You have your own standards. If you are happy with bare minimum, fine with me. I simply was not able to persuade you how important the job of president is.
I believe in MA, Romney was a good governor. He took a state of Democrats and worked effectively with them. He understood why states were part of the Government. States can experiment.
All you've told me is you assume being Governor qualifies one to be President.
Working with Democrats is a sign of a good Governor?
Let's face it, you have an opinion on the matter. I don't find it convincing.
Not even close dude, but a valiant effort. ;-)
Green Arrow
04-11-2015, 12:46 PM
Not even close dude, but a valiant effort. ;-)
It was the exact same thing, but thanks for confirming your own bias. I won't waste my time any further with you.
Strange, you say nothing about the misleading questions.
What was misleading about her questions? Be precise.
Just to lay out your own position,
What if she did that to Obama?
Do you support her tactics or would you back Obama?
What "tactics"? I can assure you that Obama would have handled her questions with grace.
Case in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uzJYlbhH54&spfreload=10
It was the exact same thing, but thanks for confirming your own bias. I won't waste my time any further with you.
No it wasn't. And there was no shushing. :)
All you've told me is you assume being Governor qualifies one to be President.
Working with Democrats is a sign of a good Governor?
Let's face it, you have an opinion on the matter. I don't find it convincing.
My explanation is far better than your very confrontational view is by far.
I am not persuaded your low standards work best for the country.
Tell me why your minimum standards are better than my call for them to have hands on experience. Chris
Chris
04-11-2015, 12:55 PM
My explanation is far better than your very confrontational view is by far.
I am not persuaded your low standards work best for the country.
Tell me why your minimum standards are better than my call for them to have hands on experience. Chris
I want someone to dismantle the federal government as much as possible. I'd look for someone with demolition experience. I joke but my point it you lick a leader who you think will lead in the right direction, not one who's just good at leading, that's like the blind leading the blind.
What "tactics"? I can assure you that Obama would have handled her questions with grace.
Case in point:
So, Obama did it the way Rand did it. So why if you approve Obama, you don't approve Rand?
If you notice, O'Reilly did not try to talk over the president.
So, Obama did it the way Rand did it. So why if you approve Obama, you don't approve Rand?
If you notice, O'Reilly did not try to talk over the president.
Sorry Bob, Obama handled Billo's stupid questions with grace and a sense of humor.
I want someone to dismantle the federal government as much as possible. I'd look for someone with demolition experience. I joke but my point it you lick a leader who you think will lead in the right direction, not one who's just good at leading, that's like the blind leading the blind.
Such a person does not exist. Remember how bad Carter was?
My experience is that I have seen presidents claim huge changes only to fail. As Obama has failed in his hope and change.
You are saying to me, you HOPE Rand will do it. I look at Rand as being FAR more practical.
I have been through this dog and pony show more than a couple of times.
Sorry Bob, Obama handled Billo's stupid questions with grace and a sense of humor.
He is a con artist. Rand in my view is not.
Chris
04-11-2015, 01:00 PM
What was misleading about her questions? Be precise.
The premise of her question was mistaken and misleading. See about the 2:45 mark.
The Xl
04-11-2015, 01:00 PM
Let's try it this way, then.
Has he flip-flopped on ending the Fed?
Has he flip-flopped on repealing the PATRIOT Act?
Has he flip-flopped on ending the drug war?
Has he flip-flopped on reforming the criminal justice system and ending mandatory minimum sentencing?
Has he flip-flopped on drones?
Start there.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/rand-paul-assures-evangelicals-that-he-d
He doesn't want to end the drug war. He just wants to tell you what you want to hear.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/23/ron-paul-fans-furious-over-rand-pauls-drone-flip-flop/
He's okay with drone use on US soil.
Ending the Fed doesn't mean much without touching our fractional reserve banking system. He's been consistent on the Patriot Act, but wouldn't shock me if he flipped on that with enough pressure.
Add all that to his stances and flips on foreign policy, and you have Rand Paul. But he's the anti establishment candidate. Sure.
Chris
04-11-2015, 01:01 PM
Such a person does not exist. Remember how bad Carter was?
My experience is that I have seen presidents claim huge changes only to fail. As Obama has failed in his hope and change.
You are saying to me, you HOPE Rand will do it. I look at Rand as being FAR more practical.
I have been through this dog and pony show more than a couple of times.
Because people keep electing candidate who are good at running government rather than dismantling it.
Because people keep electing candidate who are good at running government rather than dismantling it.
Who is this magic man that will dismantle government?
Include proof with the name please.
Chris
04-11-2015, 01:04 PM
Who is this magic man that will dismantle government?
Include proof with the name please.
Rand is clearly anti-establishment. Ron even more so. But you all establishentarians push them aside.
texan
04-11-2015, 01:13 PM
It is for sure but he is putting it at risk.................
Funny line from Bill M., why did you change your position on foreign policy? I tinkered with integrity for a few years.
Rand is clearly anti-establishment. Ron even more so. But you all establishentarians push them aside.
Back to the slur over logic approach Chris
I don't believe in what you say I believe.
Anti Establishment has to mean against those acting anti-constitutionally.
Rand Paul operates constitutionally
He is a con artist. Rand in my view is not.
Lol, no.. you can be polite and good natured without being a con artist.
kilgram
04-11-2015, 01:44 PM
Money can buy power from corrupt government. Otherwise it's only value is in spending it, investing it.
Money is power. With government or not.
In capitalist system, when you have more money, more power you have.
Capitalist: It is irrelevant if the system is pure free market or the system we have today. In the end, the idea behind the system is the same: more money more power.
And, what do you think is doing a corporation when invest money in the government. (Yes I've said invest in government).
The Xl
04-11-2015, 01:50 PM
Rand is clearly anti-establishment. Ron even more so. But you all establishentarians push them aside.
I'm not quite sure how anyone suggesting increasing our defense budget can logically be classified as anti establishment.
Now, if you want to say he's not quite as establishment as the other hacks, that's fine, but he's a long way away from being anti establishment.
Gary Johnson was anti establishment. Jill Stein was anti establishment. Ron Paul was anti establishment. Rand Paul? Not so much.
kilgram
04-11-2015, 01:53 PM
Why, like common, make things up? If I say "Government sells out to the highest bidder. This I have always said. The collusion of government and business is the problem. This I have always seen." then I am criticising both.
And despite your special definition, wealth is not power.
Wealth is power.
Explain how that is possible.
How is that possible?
Seriously? You need to come to Europe ;) Maybe you should see another point of view of the world.
I've tried to explain it to you many times. Today, I doubt I am going to be able to explain it, otherwise. But I am going to give a try.
For example, government needs money. Who are the owners of the money? Private corporations, mainly banks have it. But also, there are also other corporations who have the money. So, in some moment government need to access to the money for its projects. Well, the owners of that money will put conditions to the access of that money, normally privileges for them and they will come in form of law.
So, they ask to government to legislate in favor of them, and in exchange they give them money, or good positions in their corporations. For example, in Spain we have many ex-president of government working in electric companies. And what we've seen during their governments, that those companies have won more privileges. It is, they order to government to do X and government does X, following the instructions of their real leaders.
Exactly in that way, they rule.
It is not government ruling over corporations, it is absolutely the opposite. If you understand this, you may understand why I say that you are innocent if you believe that finishing with government, corporations and that game of power will disappear. Reality is more harsh than your illusions of that ideal world of the free market where there is only fair free trade.
Reality is a shit.
kilgram
04-11-2015, 01:56 PM
I'm not quite sure how anyone suggesting increasing our defense budget can logically be classified as anti establishment.
Now, if you want to say he's not quite as establishment as the other hacks, that's fine, but he's a long way away from being anti establishment.
Gary Johnson was anti establishment. Jill Stein was anti establishment. Ron Paul was anti establishment. Rand Paul? Not so much.
I would put in doubt all the ones that you mention, but probably they were more than Rand Paul.
I have a problem with that belief of anti-establishment. How someone can be anti-establishment being part of one of the establishment parties?
For me someone to be anti-establishment, should be someone that is away from any relation of that establishment, and the Republican Party and any of their members look to me very establishment.
PS: This commentary is not trying to contradicting your argumentation. I pretty agree with you, in this.
The Sage of Main Street
04-11-2015, 02:11 PM
frankly, i thought his dad was full of $#@! too. Full of jackal's blood. He was the obstetrician who delivered Rosemary's Baby.
Lol, no.. you can be polite and good natured without being a con artist.
You are correct. Obama the narcissist, and I say that kindly knows how to deal with the public. Rand is very honest in his dealings.
In my opinion, Obama is a true con artist.
Look how he admits the poor and the middle class still suffer yet he accepts no blame. He got elected to change. Why is he resisting?
The Sage of Main Street
04-11-2015, 02:21 PM
Rand Paul adds another minor character to the mix. Most are too young to remember when the republican party had real statesmen, today it has the circus jokers who tell jokes only the insiders understand. And then they all try to appeal to a base of conspiratorial nutcases who see the end coming soon. Rand's base though sings that tune, 'all you need is markets and freedom, all you need....' Should be fun to watch, the debates, even with the party wanting to keep them to a minimum, should be great comedy. The twisting and turning and hand raising in unison to insanity would confuse Shakespeare. Let the play begin.... I think Shakespeare predicted the GOPer Messiah of the Month primary spectacle when he described each candy-date as "a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more."
Green Arrow
04-11-2015, 02:28 PM
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/rand-paul-assures-evangelicals-that-he-d
He doesn't want to end the drug war. He just wants to tell you what you want to hear.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/23/ron-paul-fans-furious-over-rand-pauls-drone-flip-flop/
He's okay with drone use on US soil.
Ending the Fed doesn't mean much without touching our fractional reserve banking system. He's been consistent on the Patriot Act, but wouldn't shock me if he flipped on that with enough pressure.
Add all that to his stances and flips on foreign policy, and you have Rand Paul. But he's the anti establishment candidate. Sure.
So he told some people he didn't want to legalize drugs. But in action, he's working with sympathetic members of Congress to effectively decriminalize marijuana on the federal level.
The second source, Foreign Policy Magazine, is an interventionist outlet. I don't know why you're letting Rand's enemies form your opinion of him, but that's your affair.
Chris
04-11-2015, 02:32 PM
Anti Establishment has to mean against those acting anti-constitutionally.
Rand Paul operates constitutionally
No, it means acting against those who have grown government beyond the Constitution, returning it to those limits.
Chris
04-11-2015, 02:33 PM
Money is power. With government or not.
In capitalist system, when you have more money, more power you have.
Capitalist: It is irrelevant if the system is pure free market or the system we have today. In the end, the idea behind the system is the same: more money more power.
And, what do you think is doing a corporation when invest money in the government. (Yes I've said invest in government).
Here we go, me asking you to explain and you repeating.
How is money power?
Do you mean if I have a big bag of money I can threaten to hit you with it?
Only government has power. Corrupt, it sells it.
Chris
04-11-2015, 02:36 PM
Wealth is power.
How is that possible?
Seriously? You need to come to Europe ;) Maybe you should see another point of view of the world.
I've tried to explain it to you many times. Today, I doubt I am going to be able to explain it, otherwise. But I am going to give a try.
For example, government needs money. Who are the owners of the money? Private corporations, mainly banks have it. But also, there are also other corporations who have the money. So, in some moment government need to access to the money for its projects. Well, the owners of that money will put conditions to the access of that money, normally privileges for them and they will come in form of law.
So, they ask to government to legislate in favor of them, and in exchange they give them money, or good positions in their corporations. For example, in Spain we have many ex-president of government working in electric companies. And what we've seen during their governments, that those companies have won more privileges. It is, they order to government to do X and government does X, following the instructions of their real leaders.
Exactly in that way, they rule.
It is not government ruling over corporations, it is absolutely the opposite. If you understand this, you may understand why I say that you are innocent if you believe that finishing with government, corporations and that game of power will disappear. Reality is more harsh than your illusions of that ideal world of the free market where there is only fair free trade.
Reality is a shit.
So government has power and the rich money and government sells its power as favors to the rich so it stays in power.
Money buys power from those who sell it. Money itself is not power.
Chris
04-11-2015, 02:38 PM
I'm not quite sure how anyone suggesting increasing our defense budget can logically be classified as anti establishment.
Now, if you want to say he's not quite as establishment as the other hacks, that's fine, but he's a long way away from being anti establishment.
Gary Johnson was anti establishment. Jill Stein was anti establishment. Ron Paul was anti establishment. Rand Paul? Not so much.
He is more anti-establishment than other Republicans. Of course there's other who are more anti-establishment.
Green Arrow
04-11-2015, 02:42 PM
I'm not quite sure how anyone suggesting increasing our defense budget can logically be classified as anti establishment.
Now, if you want to say he's not quite as establishment as the other hacks, that's fine, but he's a long way away from being anti establishment.
Gary Johnson was anti establishment. Jill Stein was anti establishment. Ron Paul was anti establishment. Rand Paul? Not so much.
Anti-establishment means you are against the establishment. The establishment is against Rand Paul, so he is against the establishment.
Are others more anti-establishment than he is? Sure. Gary Johnson isn't the most anti-establishment guy out there either. But they are both still anti-establishment.
This isn't a difficult concept.
You are correct. Obama the narcissist, and I say that kindly knows how to deal with the public. Rand is very honest in his dealings.
In my opinion, Obama is a true con artist.
Look how he admits the poor and the middle class still suffer yet he accepts no blame. He got elected to change. Why is he resisting?
Huh? You do know that it is Republicans who keep the poor and middle class in suffering .. NOT Obama.
Yeah, you know.. but you'll never admit it.
No, it means acting against those who have grown government beyond the Constitution, returning it to those limits.
That is not what one man can get done. Paul is not Jesus and he does not walk on water.
My problem with a lot of you is I actually know how the system operates. I was once a director of one of the very large PACS.
Chris
04-11-2015, 02:47 PM
That is not what one man can get done. Paul is not Jesus and he does not walk on water.
My problem with a lot of you is I actually know how the system operates. I was once a director of one of the very large PACS.
What, and Romney was God?
Any step even by one man in the right direction is a positive step.
Not much interested in problem you have with a lot of us.
What, and Romney was God?
Any step even by one man in the right direction is a positive step.
Not much interested in problem you have with a lot of us.
With that Chris, let's take the gloves off. (yours are off already)
I have an extreme hard time suffering fools.
You assume Paul will dismantle government???
My god, do you read your own posts?
Peter1469
04-11-2015, 02:50 PM
What was misleading about her questions? Be precise.
Hey Bo, when did you stop beating your boyfriend?
Hey Bo, when did you stop beating your boyfriend?
When he left me for you. :D
Chris
04-11-2015, 02:54 PM
With that Chris, let's take the gloves off. (yours are off already)
I have an extreme hard time suffering fools.
You assume Paul will dismantle government???
My god, do you read your own posts?
I said he will do more than other candidate to do so. I said from the start: "What I like most about Rand Paul is he sets himself against the Republican establishment." Do you read my posts?
Stop trying to make this personal, bob, it's just politics.
Huh? You do know that it is Republicans who keep the poor and middle class in suffering .. NOT Obama.
Yeah, you know.. but you'll never admit it.
Actually you can't prove that nor have you ever tried to prove it.
I am blaming Obama for breaking his own promises.
With that Chris, let's take the gloves off. (yours are off already)
I have an extreme hard time suffering fools.
You assume Paul will dismantle government???
My god, do you read your own posts?
Chris is smitten with the Paul boy right now. Give Rand about a month in the White House and he'd feel the same as he does about every other politician.
For starters, Rand lost his "libertarian" credentials when he tried to slip a national personhood amendment into the flood insurance bill.
Not that they aren't totally related mind you. ;-)
I said from the start: "What I like most about Rand Paul is he sets himself against the Republican establishment."
No, actually he doesn't. When it comes to social issues.. Rand is quite Republican.
When will Chris admit that when it comes to Rand .. Gary Johnson he AIN'T?
I said he will do more than other candidate to do so. I said from the start: "What I like most about Rand Paul is he sets himself against the Republican establishment." Do you read my posts?
Stop trying to make this personal, bob, it's just politics.
It is only as personal as you keep trying to make it.
You are called on this by other posters so it is not simply my impression.
I get a laugh when you act as if you trust Paul.
No matter if he is trustworthy, he uses the same system.
This is a system problem and Paul won't influence Democrats. They hate the man and will block him at every turn.
They can make him eat his promises. I do know the system Chris.
Peter1469
04-11-2015, 02:58 PM
When he left me for you. :D
Ah... Good answer. That is the way Rand is treating your biased press!
BTW, he says hi. :wink:
Chris
04-11-2015, 02:59 PM
Chris is smitten with the Paul boy right now. Give Rand about a month in the White House and he'd feel the same as he does about every other politician.
For starters, Rand lost his "libertarian" credentials when he tried to slip a national personhood amendment into the flood insurance bill.
Not that they aren't totally related mind you. ;-)
Rand never claimed to be libertarian. I didn't say I supported him. I just said I liked his anti-establishment stance. And asked were there any Dems like that. Apparently not.
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:01 PM
It is only as personal as you keep trying to make it.
You are called on this by other posters so it is not simply my impression.
I get a laugh when you act as if you trust Paul.
No matter if he is trustworthy, he uses the same system.
This is a system problem and Paul won't influence Democrats. They hate the man and will block him at every turn.
They can make him eat his promises. I do know the system Chris.
Bob, I challenged what you posted, how is that personal?
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:03 PM
No, actually he doesn't. When it comes to social issues.. Rand is quite Republican.
When will Chris admit that when it comes to Rand .. Gary Johnson he AIN'T?
Wrong again. He has personal stances but doesn't believe government should be involved. Do you not see the difference?
I didn't say Rand Paul was Gary Johnson, why do you argue so many strawmen?
I said "What I like most about Rand Paul is he sets himself against the Republican establishment."
Actually you can't prove that nor have you ever tried to prove it.
I am blaming Obama for breaking his own promises.
Which is why you often deal in unbridled stupidity.
Find me ONE promise broken which wasn't due to the intransigence and cock-blocking of Republicans (and in some cases such as closing Gitmo -- Dems also).
I'll wait. ;-)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:07 PM
Which is why you often deal in unbridled stupidity.
Find me ONE promise broken which wasn't due to the intransigence and cock-blocking of Republicans (and in some cases such as closing Gitmo -- Dems also).
I'll wait. ;-)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Obama promised transparency. Waiting...
Green Arrow
04-11-2015, 03:08 PM
No, actually he doesn't. When it comes to social issues.. Rand is quite Republican.
When will Chris admit that when it comes to Rand .. Gary Johnson he AIN'T?
He also ain't Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, so that's an immediate improvement. I may not get Jesus, but Peter is still a much better alternative than the devil.
Rand never claimed to be libertarian. I didn't say I supported him. I just said I liked his anti-establishment stance. And asked were there any Dems like that. Apparently not.
Liz Warren is anti-establishment. She's also more consistent than your guy.
Chris is smitten with the Paul boy right now. Give Rand about a month in the White House and he'd feel the same as he does about every other politician.
For starters, Rand lost his "libertarian" credentials when he tried to slip a national personhood amendment into the flood insurance bill.
Not that they aren't totally related mind you. ;-)
I honestly can't comment on your charges. I know this about congress.
Many times they will try to include things into various money bills. Both sides do the same thing.
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:11 PM
Liz Warren is anti-establishment. She's also more consistent than your guy.
Hey, finally, we're back to the topic. In what ways is she anti-Democratic-establishment? Not saying she's not, but I'd like to hear.
Bob, I challenged what you posted, how is that personal?
I did the same thing and you accused me.
Which is why you often deal in unbridled stupidity.
Find me ONE promise broken which wasn't due to the intransigence and cock-blocking of Republicans (and in some cases such as closing Gitmo -- Dems also).
I'll wait. ;-)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
If he could get the ACA, when he had total power, he could have done it all. You ignore what Harry Reid pulled.
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:16 PM
I did the same thing and you accused me.
Accused you of what, bob?
The Xl
04-11-2015, 03:21 PM
Anti-establishment means you are against the establishment. The establishment is against Rand Paul, so he is against the establishment.
Are others more anti-establishment than he is? Sure. Gary Johnson isn't the most anti-establishment guy out there either. But they are both still anti-establishment.
This isn't a difficult concept.
Gary Johnson was far far more anti establishment than rand, someone actually worth supporting. On top of all the other shit, rand has also flip flopped on gay marriage while still wanting the government in the process. I got others, but to post them would be a pain on the phone.
It isn't a difficult concept, sadly, it's one you don't seem to grasp. Much like the left and right in the last few elections, you're subscribing to the lesser of the evils train of thought.
And you'd best believe you haven't seen the last or biggest of his flip flops. Stay tuned. He isn't principled like his father, he's a power hungry politician
The Xl
04-11-2015, 03:23 PM
Liz Warren is anti-establishment. She's also more consistent than your guy.
Liz Warren is the lefts rand. Anti establishment in name only.
She'll pull an Obama in 3 seconds if she got elected
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:25 PM
Gary Johnson was far far more anti establishment than rand, someone actually worth supporting. On top of all the other shit, rand has also flip flopped on gay marriage while still wanting the government in the process. I got others, but to post them would be a pain on the phone.
It isn't a difficult concept, sadly, it's one you don't seem to grasp. Much like the left and right in the last few elections, you're subscribing to the lesser of the evils train of thought.
And you'd best believe you haven't seen the last or biggest of his flip flops. Stay tuned. He isn't principled like his father, he's a power hungry politician
I think I read recently Rand's campaign won't let Ron Paul campaign for son.
Agree again Johnson is more anti-establishment.
Green Arrow
04-11-2015, 03:26 PM
Gary Johnson was far far more anti establishment than rand, someone actually worth supporting. On top of all the other shit, rand has also flip flopped on gay marriage while still wanting the government in the process. I got others, but to post them would be a pain on the phone.
It isn't a difficult concept, sadly, it's one you don't seem to grasp. Much like the left and right in the last few elections, you're subscribing to the lesser of the evils train of thought.
And you'd best believe you haven't seen the last or biggest of his flip flops. Stay tuned. He isn't principled like his father, he's a power hungry politician
So don't vote for him. I don't care anymore. It's not like our vote for President means shit anyway.
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:26 PM
Liz Warren is the lefts rand. Anti establishment in name only.
She'll pull an Obama in 3 seconds if she got elected
Seems to be how you win, a race to the center, that's establishment politics.
Accused you of what, bob?
Suggestion box
Read all of your previous half dozen posts to me or about me.
Hey, finally, we're back to the topic. In what ways is she anti-Democratic-establishment? Not saying she's not, but I'd like to hear.
Truth be told Chris, the only consistent anti-Dem establishment guys at this point are Warren and Bernie Sanders.
The rest of them talk a good game about breaking up the "too big to fail" banks and fixing income inequality, but when push comes to shove, they cower like everyone else.
Obama has been generally consistent (yet blocked by Republican hatred and intransigence) but with some notable exceptions .. foreign policy, drones and the Patriot Act (spying on US citizens especially).
Is there a perfect candidate in my world? Nope.. but Warren and Sanders come closest to my ideal.
Good read on Warren:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/ready-for-warrens-ideas/382773/
The Xl
04-11-2015, 03:33 PM
Seems to be how you win, a race to the center, that's establishment politics.
You pose in the center, get elected, then govern like a crony. Its what Obama did. Rand reminds me of campaign Obama very much, actually.
This notion that anyone is going to pretend to be establishment and then govern otherwise once they get into office is ridiculous. That's a good way to get assassinated at worst, accomplish nothing at best. What would rand do with the government and special interests at his throat, and without the support of the people? Your best bet is to have the people on your side by convincing them that your ideas are best, and that won't be done by sucking off Israel, increasing the defense budget, appealing to the religious right in regards to abortion and gay marriage, etc.
Wrong again. He has personal stances but doesn't believe government should be involved. Do you not see the difference?
I didn't say Rand Paul was Gary Johnson, why do you argue so many strawmen?
I said "What I like most about Rand Paul is he sets himself against the Republican establishment."
Yeah, and that's one of my problems with Rand.
If left up to him, it would probably be cool if the entire Civil Rights act was gutted and we returned to the days when businesses could display signs like this.
In my world .. not cool. We need government to assure equality.
https://31.media.tumblr.com/3c3177a41f2d3aef7f4018e80420e2c6/tumblr_inline_n22wob8nPD1sqnlm8.gif
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:40 PM
Truth be told Chris, the only consistent anti-Dem establishment guys at this point are Warren and Bernie Sanders.
The rest of them talk a good game about breaking up the "too big to fail" banks and fixing income inequality, but when push comes to shove, they cower like everyone else.
Obama has been generally consistent (yet blocked by Republican hatred and intransigence) but with some notable exceptions .. foreign policy, drones and the Patriot Act (spying on US citizens especially).
Is there a perfect candidate in my world? Nope.. but Warren and Sanders come closest to my ideal.
Good read on Warren:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/ready-for-warrens-ideas/382773/
OK, thanks.
By anti-establishment I sort of also imply standing for limited government but if we limit it to standing against the established good old boy network then Warren opposed to Clinton and Sanders opposed to state capitalism of the sort Obama endorses, then OK.
Republicans talk a good game on limited government but when it comes down to it, it's just lip service. So both parties are similar there.
Is Warren really against the banks? What about her stance on Ex-Im Bank? Seems, like Rand, she's not always consistent either.
No perfect candidates, it's an imperfect world.
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:42 PM
Yeah, and that's one of my problems with Rand.
If left up to him, it would probably be cool if the entire Civil Rights act was gutted and we returned to the days when businesses could display signs like this.
In my world .. not cool. We need government to assure equality.
https://31.media.tumblr.com/3c3177a41f2d3aef7f4018e80420e2c6/tumblr_inline_n22wob8nPD1sqnlm8.gif
Misrepresentation of his stance. He is personally against that sort of discrimination, says he finds it abhorrent. But he argues, and I agree, it's not government's place to dictate what associations private individual and businesses must make, it is, if our government is to follow the principle of rule of law, vital for government itself not to discriminate.
The Xl
04-11-2015, 03:42 PM
Yeah, and that's one of my problems with Rand.
If left up to him, it would probably be cool if the entire Civil Rights act was gutted and we returned to the days when businesses could display signs like this.
In my world .. not cool. We need government to assure equality.
https://31.media.tumblr.com/3c3177a41f2d3aef7f4018e80420e2c6/tumblr_inline_n22wob8nPD1sqnlm8.gif
Rands private property stances in regards to who you wish to serve for whatever reason is one of his few actual libertarian beliefs. As far as I know, he never extended that belief to public property, so it's fine. Wouldn't shock me if he flip flopped on it all together, though
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:45 PM
You pose in the center, get elected, then govern like a crony. Its what Obama did. Rand reminds me of campaign Obama very much, actually.
This notion that anyone is going to pretend to be establishment and then govern otherwise once they get into office is ridiculous. That's a good way to get assassinated at worst, accomplish nothing at best. What would rand do with the government and special interests at his throat, and without the support of the people? Your best bet is to have the people on your side by convincing them that your ideas are best, and that won't be done by sucking off Israel, increasing the defense budget, appealing to the religious right in regards to abortion and gay marriage, etc.
On the plus side is getting out the message of limiting government to the Constitution. His father was more uncompromising and thus never stood a chance against the Republican establishment, but he got out and continues to get out the message.
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:46 PM
Suggestion box
Read all of your previous half dozen posts to me or about me.
I've commented on what you've posted. But I tire of you trying to make this personal. You're on your own.
OK, thanks.
By anti-establishment I sort of also imply standing for limited government but if we limit it to standing against the established good old boy network then Warren opposed to Clinton and Sanders opposed to state capitalism of the sort Obama endorses, then OK.
Republicans talk a good game on limited government but when it comes down to it, it's just lip service. So both parties are similar there.
Is Warren really against the banks? What about her stance on Ex-Im Bank? Seems, like Rand, she's not always consistent either.
No perfect candidates, it's an imperfect world.
I had to catch up on that.. thanks.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/29/export-import-bank-elizabeth-warren-fdr-corporations-column/16385923/
And indeed -- the day a perfect and perfectly consistent candidate graces us with said perfection will be the day Jesus returns.
Ehhh, MAYBE. ;-)
http://foodforthethinkers.com/2013/12/22/was-jesus-a-libertarian/
Chris
04-11-2015, 03:58 PM
I had to catch up on that.. thanks.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/29/export-import-bank-elizabeth-warren-fdr-corporations-column/16385923/
And indeed -- the day a perfect and perfectly consistent candidate graces us with said perfection will be the day Jesus returns.
Ehhh, MAYBE. ;-)
http://foodforthethinkers.com/2013/12/22/was-jesus-a-libertarian/
That article you linked earlier was good: Ready for Warren's Ideas (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/ready-for-warrens-ideas/382773/):
...The problem for activists like Green and Albright-Hanna is that, in the event that Warren doesn't run, Democrats will likely be left without a viable progressive standard-bearer. While Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has expressed interest in the race, the Democratic Socialist will struggle to gain traction with the party's mainstream or be taken seriously as a candidate. Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb announced the creation of an exploratory committee in anticipation of a run for the White House, but should he run, Webb would likely be competing for the same inside-the-beltway fundraisers that Clinton has already locked up. And former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who has signaled that he plans to run, has struggled to break out of the low single digits in polls.
So as Clinton waits in the wings for her coronation and Warren distances herself from a presidential bid, liberal activists are moving to their next best option: waging a campaign of ideas around the absent Warren. And while Warren seems as definitive as ever about not running, her supporters have been remarkably successful in getting the Democratic establishment to pay attention to her ideas. In November, Congressional Democrats announced that Warren would join their four-person leadership circle as a liaison to the progressive wing of the party. On Tuesday, CNN reported that Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has reached out to Warren "several times" over the past six months, including a private meeting at Secretary Clinton's Washington D.C. home in December. With the former Secretary of State—or at least her advisors—listening, it's unlikely that pro-Warren activists will let up anytime soon....
It allows me some insight into Democrats--provided I suspend disbelief, lol.
Yes, Jesus was a libertarian, http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig11/mullen-t2.1.1.html, even anarchist, http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html.
Kurmugeon
04-11-2015, 04:01 PM
Someone without anger or misogynistic issues.. i suspect that Rand has at minimum a mild case of each.
So Rand Paul "DARES" to stand up to the character assassination questions of a Rabid, Biased, Radical Leftie Journalist, who also happens to be female, and that makes Rand a Misogynist?
BULL! It makes him strong enough to stand up to the pressure from the MSM and Leftie Shills.
The Lefties attempts to smear Rand Paul as a Misogynist are transparent, deceptive, unethical, and despicable!
-
Misrepresentation of his stance. He is personally against that sort of discrimination, says he finds it abhorrent. But he argues, and I agree, it's not government's place to dictate what associations private individual and businesses must make, it is, if our government is to follow the principle of rule of law, vital for government itself not to discriminate.
California very long long ago, made this against the law of this state. If business dare step out of line, they will be prosecuted. Since it is a long standing vipers nest of Democrats, tossing out the law is a not going to happen.
Peter1469
04-11-2015, 05:27 PM
I would add Webb.
Truth be told @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), the only consistent anti-Dem establishment guys at this point are Warren and Bernie Sanders.
The rest of them talk a good game about breaking up the "too big to fail" banks and fixing income inequality, but when push comes to shove, they cower like everyone else.
Obama has been generally consistent (yet blocked by Republican hatred and intransigence) but with some notable exceptions .. foreign policy, drones and the Patriot Act (spying on US citizens especially).
Is there a perfect candidate in my world? Nope.. but Warren and Sanders come closest to my ideal.
Good read on Warren:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/ready-for-warrens-ideas/382773/
kilgram
04-11-2015, 06:22 PM
Here we go, me asking you to explain and you repeating.
How is money power?
Do you mean if I have a big bag of money I can threaten to hit you with it?
Only government has power. Corrupt, it sells it.
I can buy someone to threaten you to hit you. Something that enterprises have done during years :)
I don't need government to use my possible power to be evil. I only need have good connections with the private enterprise to trade with them to obtain my goals.
Obviously, it would be make me getting dirtier. But it is possible ;) and happens. However, today the enterprises have more comfortable methods like using the government for their own interests.
kilgram
04-11-2015, 06:27 PM
So government has power and the rich money and government sells its power as favors to the rich so it stays in power.
Money buys power from those who sell it. Money itself is not power.
Money gives power.
The system is based in money. I have money, I have power.
If the system was based in other things, money would not be power, itself. But today, without money, you don't do anything. Nothing. So, yes when wealthier is someone more powerful is that person. That is a fact.
Chris
04-11-2015, 07:01 PM
I can buy someone to threaten you to hit you. Something that enterprises have done during years :)
I don't need government to use my possible power to be evil. I only need have good connections with the private enterprise to trade with them to obtain my goals.
Obviously, it would be make me getting dirtier. But it is possible ;) and happens. However, today the enterprises have more comfortable methods like using the government for their own interests.
Yes, and that someone happens to be government.
The mafia has done it.
I don't think Walmart has.
Right, you can yourself be evil, but money doesn't make you evil or more evil.
Do you think you can find a free enterprise that sells harm to others? Can you buy a hitman from free enterprise?
Chris
04-11-2015, 07:03 PM
Money gives power.
The system is based in money. I have money, I have power.
If the system was based in other things, money would not be power, itself. But today, without money, you don't do anything. Nothing. So, yes when wealthier is someone more powerful is that person. That is a fact.
Money can be used to buy power from those who have power, namely government.
Otherwise, money is just a means of exchange.
kilgram
04-12-2015, 07:18 AM
Money can be used to buy power from those who have power, namely government.
Otherwise, money is just a means of exchange.
No, government is a tool by the corporations. Don't get wrong that is the opposite.
This system is useful for corporations because they don't have to become dirty. If there is a change of paradigm, the power will change to corporations.
Don't get wrong that the corruption is only in government. Corporations are also corrupt. Power makes corrupt to the people.
Why do you see only evil in government, and you don't think possible to exist in corporations? Because corporations are behind the corruption, too. Why do you think that in the corruption is only the corrupted the evil? The corruptor is also part of the corruption, in other words, they are also corrupted.
It is what happens today in Spain. The propaganda always talk about the corrupt politicians. But, they always forget to mention that behind that corrupt politicians there are corrupt corporations.
The Sage of Main Street
04-12-2015, 09:15 AM
No, actually he doesn't. When it comes to social issues.. Rand is quite Republican.
When will Chris admit that when it comes to Rand .. Gary Johnson he AIN'T? I'm surprised to find myself saying this, but Chris has a point. Rand could campaign as Establishment, then go Libertarian once elected and having the power to push that through in defiance of his campaign personality. Look at LBJ and Wilson (1916) and how they campaigned as "peace candidates."
Chris
04-12-2015, 09:36 AM
No, government is a tool by the corporations. Don't get wrong that is the opposite.
This system is useful for corporations because they don't have to become dirty. If there is a change of paradigm, the power will change to corporations.
Don't get wrong that the corruption is only in government. Corporations are also corrupt. Power makes corrupt to the people.
Why do you see only evil in government, and you don't think possible to exist in corporations? Because corporations are behind the corruption, too. Why do you think that in the corruption is only the corrupted the evil? The corruptor is also part of the corruption, in other words, they are also corrupted.
It is what happens today in Spain. The propaganda always talk about the corrupt politicians. But, they always forget to mention that behind that corrupt politicians there are corrupt corporations.
The issue is government selling out as a tool for the rich.
We're talking political corruption.
I don't see evil in only one. I see evil in the collusion of the powerful and rich. Why do you see evil in only one?
Chris
04-12-2015, 09:37 AM
I'm surprised to find myself saying this, but Chris has a point. Rand could campaign as Establishment, then go Libertarian once elected and having the power to push that through in defiance of his campaign personality. Look at LBJ and Wilson (1916) and how they campaigned as "peace candidates."
Except Rand is neither libertarian nor Libertarian. He is not his father.
The Sage of Main Street
04-12-2015, 09:41 AM
Money can be used to buy power from those who have power, namely government.
Otherwise, money is just a means of exchange. You don't identify the power to determine wages and to demand that we pay for our own professional training as power, but as a choice for the beggars having an imaginary equal bargaining position. So collective action to equalize power is considered to be unfair from your deluded perspective.
Chris
04-12-2015, 09:45 AM
You don't identify the power to determine wages and to demand that we pay for our own professional training as power, but as a choice for the beggars having an imaginary equal bargaining position. So collective action to equalize power is considered to be unfair from your deluded perspective.
No one can force wages on you. And employer can set wages, sure, and an employee accept or reject. No force.
No one can force you to educate yourself. Same thing.
Collective action is fine so long as government doesn't step in to force the matter one way or another.
kilgram
04-12-2015, 10:48 AM
The issue is government selling out as a tool for the rich.
We're talking political corruption.
I don't see evil in only one. I see evil in the collusion of the powerful and rich. Why do you see evil in only one?
What are the menaces I always mention?
What are the menaces you always mention?
Who mention more menaces?
I am talking about corruption.
Chris
04-12-2015, 11:46 AM
What are the menaces I always mention?
What are the menaces you always mention?
Who mention more menaces?
I am talking about corruption.
A corrupt business loses reputation and is dealt with by market forces.
Government corruption is practically untouchable.
kilgram
04-12-2015, 01:26 PM
A corrupt business loses reputation and is dealt with by market forces.
Government corruption is practically untouchable.
That is in the utopic world. In the reality that does not happen.
Ethics and market usually don't stick together much. The only reason that a company will lose reputation is that a competitor is making something better and people goes to this new competitor. The rest of things are irrellevant.
For example, if you ask in Spain there is some high "socialist" conscience. It means, that workers must be well treated,... Well, many corporations are known for exactly the opposite and they are a success. A thing that makes have low reputation, consumers don't care. Ethics are in market are irrellevant. The only important thing is: Am I going to sell it?
However, you didn't answer my question ;)
PS: A corrupt government loses reputation, too ;) (In theory)
Chris
04-12-2015, 01:34 PM
That is in the utopic world. In the reality that does not happen.
Ethics and market usually don't stick together much. The only reason that a company will lose reputation is that a competitor is making something better and people goes to this new competitor. The rest of things are irrellevant.
For example, if you ask in Spain there is some high "socialist" conscience. It means, that workers must be well treated,... Well, many corporations are known for exactly the opposite and they are a success. A thing that makes have low reputation, consumers don't care. Ethics are in market are irrellevant. The only important thing is: Am I going to sell it?
However, you didn't answer my question ;)
PS: A corrupt government loses reputation, too ;) (In theory)
No, it does happen. Businesses with bad reputations lose customers, employees, business.
Ethics in market are the ethics of people, the market is nothing more than what emerges from their interactions and exchanges, it is moral inasmuch as people are so.
Your example in Spain of a socialist reputation proves the point.
How are you going to sell anything in the market if you have a reputation as a fraud and cheat? Who would work for you?
Again, you are proving you're an authoritarian not trusting the people to their own resources to run their own lives.
kilgram
04-12-2015, 01:47 PM
No, it does happen. Businesses with bad reputations lose customers, employees, business.
Ethics in market are the ethics of people, the market is nothing more than what emerges from their interactions and exchanges, it is moral inasmuch as people are so.
Your example in Spain of a socialist reputation proves the point.
How are you going to sell anything in the market if you have a reputation as a fraud and cheat? Who would work for you?
Again, you are proving you're an authoritarian not trusting the people to their own resources to run their own lives.
I am not authoritarian. Not as much as you are.
Remember that I trust people to their own resources to run their own lives. I don't trust corporations neither capitalism. That is very different. You cannot accuse me for being authoritarian because I don't like capitalism. That does not make me authoritarian.
What makes some one authoritarian is defending the authority. And I remember you that you defend the authority of the religion, the family and obviously the corporations. That is pretty much authoritarism than I will ever defend. But yeah, you are right. I am authoritarian because I don't like capitalism. Thank you, Chris.
Seriously? Well, the example is that in a society where the treatment of the worker is high standard. Companies that treat badly the workers and other dark tactics don't lose clients.
Corruption affects to everything. Corruption in many factors, one of them is transparency. And sorry, but companies are pretty opaque, too, as governments, and for this there is so much corruption.
Or how I would say, lack of democracy.
PS: If your theory was right about the corruption in the private market, it also would be right in government. For example, if your party has reputation of fraud and cheat who will vote for you? The votes to those corrupted goes down when they are known for cheating and fraud? Yes or no. Then ask if that happens in government cannot happen exactly the same in market. There is no much real difference.
I am pointing you the defects of a system. I am not saying that I am afraid of people taking their own decisions. Because it is exactly what I've defended from the beginning. More vehemently than you.
PS: I am not authoritarian. Nothing authoritarian. As I said you, that I don't agree with your ideology does not make me authoritarian. Just I don't agree and I don't like it.
It is more, why are you free to change my words and when I've done, and not exaggerately as you do I am being the bad one ;)
Chris
04-12-2015, 01:49 PM
I am not authoritarian. Not as much as you are.
Yet you don't trust people to run their own lives the way they see fit.
PolWatch
04-12-2015, 01:52 PM
Interesting remark by Laura Bush about Paul's candidacy and an indication of Bush foreign policy. I wish I knew which balance sheet for the nation the Bushes are reading:
'Sen. Rand Paul (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/rand-paul.htm), who announced his presidential campaign last week, has called for eliminating all U.S. foreign aid. Bush told ABC News doing that would be both impractical and immoral.
“I think that's not really realistic, for one thing. We're a very wealthy nation. We're a blessed nation and I think it's morally improper for us not to save lives if we can,” she said.'
http://news.yahoo.com/laura-bush-shocked-initial-barbara-bush-hesitancy-support-154442078.html
Green Arrow
04-12-2015, 02:07 PM
Interesting remark by Laura Bush about Paul's candidacy and an indication of Bush foreign policy. I wish I knew which balance sheet for the nation the Bushes are reading:
'Sen. Rand Paul (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/rand-paul.htm), who announced his presidential campaign last week, has called for eliminating all U.S. foreign aid. Bush told ABC News doing that would be both impractical and immoral.
“I think that's not really realistic, for one thing. We're a very wealthy nation. We're a blessed nation and I think it's morally improper for us not to save lives if we can,” she said.'
http://news.yahoo.com/laura-bush-shocked-initial-barbara-bush-hesitancy-support-154442078.html
I respect her position and the good heart it comes from, but the problem is that we cannot continue spending money we don't have. We have to find a balance. I believe diplomacy, rather than force, is the way we can use our might and power to do good in the world and save lives.
Chris
04-12-2015, 02:17 PM
Laura's hubby is an establishment neocon, so her comments are expected.
kilgram
04-12-2015, 02:40 PM
Yet you don't trust people to run their own lives the way they see fit.
As I said in the extended version of my answer. I don't trust capitalism neither corporations.
That I don't trust your "libertarian system" and I don't believe it as libertarian and antiauthoritarian or even that system will permit people run their own lives the way they see fit, does not mean that I don't trust people to run their own lives the way they see it.
Just I don't trust and I don't like any kind of capitalism. None. 0.
If that makes me authoritarian, you have a weird concept of authoritarism.
PS: And why are you saying lies? I've never said I didn't trust people to run their own lives the way they see fit.
PS: Your hipocresy is brutal. You accuse me to inventing things about your ideology, but you are doing the same shit with me. And more evident.
Chris
04-12-2015, 03:13 PM
As I said in the extended version of my answer. I don't trust capitalism neither corporations.
That I don't trust your "libertarian system" and I don't believe it as libertarian and antiauthoritarian or even that system will permit people run their own lives the way they see fit, does not mean that I don't trust people to run their own lives the way they see it.
Just I don't trust and I don't like any kind of capitalism. None. 0.
If that makes me authoritarian, you have a weird concept of authoritarism.
PS: And why are you saying lies? I've never said I didn't trust people to run their own lives the way they see fit.
PS: Your hipocresy is brutal. You accuse me to inventing things about your ideology, but you are doing the same shit with me. And more evident.
I don't trust capitalism or libertarianism as you redefine them either.
donttread
04-12-2015, 07:17 PM
Money gives power.
The system is based in money. I have money, I have power.
If the system was based in other things, money would not be power, itself. But today, without money, you don't do anything. Nothing. So, yes when wealthier is someone more powerful is that person. That is a fact.
For freedom to live the megacorps must die. There can be no other way
Matty
04-12-2015, 07:18 PM
For freedom to live the megacorps must die. There can be no other way
They can can just move to another country. They don't have to die.
Chris
04-12-2015, 07:22 PM
For freedom to live the megacorps must die. There can be no other way
Not going to happen as long as megagovernment exists in collusion with them.
kilgram
04-13-2015, 07:52 AM
I don't trust capitalism or libertarianism as you redefine them either.
I don't redefine. I don't agree with your conclusions and conseqüències.
Enviat des del meu MT15i usant Tapatalk 2
kilgram
04-13-2015, 07:58 AM
Not going to happen as long as megagovernment exists in collusion with them.
Megacorporations don't need government to exist. Google, Apple... are examples of that
Enviat des del meu MT15i usant Tapatalk 2
Chris
04-13-2015, 08:29 AM
I don't redefine. I don't agree with your conclusions and conseqüències.
Enviat des del meu MT15i usant Tapatalk 2
You don't? Then what is your criticism of a market that emerges from people freely exchanging goods and services?
Chris
04-13-2015, 08:30 AM
Megacorporations don't need government to exist. Google, Apple... are examples of that
Enviat des del meu MT15i usant Tapatalk 2
Corporations are legally defined and legally protected. What entity is responsibly for that if not government?
kilgram
04-13-2015, 08:43 AM
You don't? Then what is your criticism of a market that emerges from people freely exchanging goods and services?
I don't share your ideology. I don't trust the effects of that system.
Enviat des del meu MT15i usant Tapatalk 2
kilgram
04-13-2015, 08:44 AM
Corporations are legally defined and legally protected. What entity is responsibly for that if not government?
Then big enterprises
Enviat des del meu MT15i usant Tapatalk 2
Chris
04-13-2015, 09:02 AM
I don't share your ideology. I don't trust the effects of that system.
Enviat des del meu MT15i usant Tapatalk 2
In short you have no criticism of "a market that emerges from people freely exchanging goods and services." You're redefining what I'm saying and criticising your redefinition. That's a strawman, one even I criticize. But it's somewhat disingenuous to do that and pretend you're arguing what I'm saying.
Chris
04-13-2015, 09:03 AM
Then big enterprises
Enviat des del meu MT15i usant Tapatalk 2
How would big enterprizes come about in a competitive market?
kilgram
04-13-2015, 09:40 AM
How would big enterprizes come about in a competitive market?
How Google, Apple or Microsoft did.
They had no help from government. None, 0.
Is that so hard to grasp?
kilgram
04-13-2015, 09:42 AM
In short you have no criticism of "a market that emerges from people freely exchanging goods and services." You're redefining what I'm saying and criticising your redefinition. That's a strawman, one even I criticize. But it's somewhat disingenuous to do that and pretend you're arguing what I'm saying.
Chris, why cannot be able to understand that I don't have the same views as you have. I don't need to redefine anything. Just I don't agree with your vision as you don't do with the mine. As you see real democracy as a dictatorship I see your system as a dictatorship. Why is so hard to understand that?
Chris
04-13-2015, 10:04 AM
Chris, why cannot be able to understand that I don't have the same views as you have. I don't need to redefine anything. Just I don't agree with your vision as you don't do with the mine. As you see real democracy as a dictatorship I see your system as a dictatorship. Why is so hard to understand that?
That's fine that you have different views. Just don't pretend you're addressing my views when you're not. I don't pretend to argue with your definition of democracy but spell out what it is I criticize about democracy as others define it. I really have no idea how you define democracy other than the fantasy that by some magic pill everyone will just agree to everything--why bother criticizing that? And, no, kilgram, you do not at all understand what I advocate for when I say "a market that emerges from people freely exchanging goods and services" you have absolutely no response to that.
Chris
04-13-2015, 10:06 AM
How Google, Apple or Microsoft did.
They had no help from government. None, 0.
Is that so hard to grasp?
How? Spell it out. Or I will simply assume you have nothing.
kilgram
04-13-2015, 10:11 AM
How? Spell it out. Or I will simply assume you have nothing.
No, I leave it to you?
Think about it. How they have become what they are?
Answer the question:
Do they receive help from government?
If they dont' do, why that cannot happen in your ideal system if it is already happening.
kilgram
04-13-2015, 10:13 AM
That's fine that you have different views. Just don't pretend you're addressing my views when you're not. I don't pretend to argue with your definition of democracy but spell out what it is I criticize about democracy as others define it. I really have no idea how you define democracy other than the fantasy that by some magic pill everyone will just agree to everything--why bother criticizing that? And, no, kilgram, you do not at all understand what I advocate for when I say "a market that emerges from people freely exchanging goods and services" you have absolutely no response to that.
I fucking understand that. It is the fucking theory of even today's system. It is the fucking propaganda of the system that we have today. You are not doing anything else than repeating the propaganda.
Propaganda is not reality.
Chris
04-13-2015, 10:28 AM
I fucking understand that. It is the fucking theory of even today's system. It is the fucking propaganda of the system that we have today. You are not doing anything else than repeating the propaganda.
Propaganda is not reality.
To you fucking is a theory and propaganda? You're losing coherence.
Chris
04-13-2015, 10:33 AM
No, I leave it to you?
Think about it. How they have become what they are?
Answer the question:
Do they receive help from government?
If they dont' do, why that cannot happen in your ideal system if it is already happening.
You have nothing.
Yes, as corporations they are protected under corporate personhood and limited liability. They also receive subsidies, $50 some billion I've read somewhere.
Chris
04-13-2015, 11:36 AM
kilgram, this is what it's like arguing with you.
A says "Banks are good because they keep rivers from flooding."
B says "Banks are evil because they charge interest."
Both meanings are valid, but what B says has nothing to do with what A says.
Howey
04-13-2015, 11:36 AM
I $#@!ing understand that. It is the $#@!ing theory of even today's system. It is the $#@!ing propaganda of the system that we have today. You are not doing anything else than repeating the propaganda.
Propaganda is not reality.
*wow* Take it easy there, Tiger!
kilgram
04-13-2015, 12:45 PM
@kilgram (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=867), this is what it's like arguing with you.
A says "Banks are good because they keep rivers from flooding."
B says "Banks are evil because they charge interest."
Both meanings are valid, but what B says has nothing to do with what A says.
Chris, I've not changed any meaning of your illusions. I've talked insided of your unreal system. And I've pointed why that system is absolutely unreal and impossible.
Chris you've never been able to explain any mechanism to prevent the system from failure. You only base all your argumentation over the theoric basis, that is basically based in the good will of the people. It is a system without any mechanism to prevent the corruption of itself. You suppose that there is no corruption in the private world. That is wrong. For this reason your system is doomed and will fail. It is basically based in illusions that are far from reality.
You can excuse yourself or try to evade the reality saying that I am not discussing on the same points. I don't care anymore. But remember that everything related to the human does not work as you would have previewed and if you want to something work you cannot leave that unchecked. And if the "rules" of the system are violated there must be mechanism to prevent that corruption before it is too late.
You've never presented any possible mechanism to prevent the corruption of the system. None. 0.
I've explained thousand times that are words, that the words are nice. But that it is what makes a system real or possible.
kilgram
04-13-2015, 12:47 PM
To you fucking is a theory and propaganda? You're losing coherence.
Now I got fucking lost xD (to keep the fucking usage :) )
kilgram
04-13-2015, 12:50 PM
*wow* Take it easy there, Tiger!
Shit!!!, Why should fucking take it easy? I speak as I like :)
Is some rule that I cannot talk in that way ;)
(By the way why cannot I see my complete quoted text?)
Chris
04-13-2015, 12:56 PM
Chris, I've not changed any meaning of your illusions. I've talked insided of your unreal system. And I've pointed why that system is absolutely unreal and impossible.
Chris you've never been able to explain any mechanism to prevent the system from failure. You only base all your argumentation over the theoric basis, that is basically based in the good will of the people. It is a system without any mechanism to prevent the corruption of itself. You suppose that there is no corruption in the private world. That is wrong. For this reason your system is doomed and will fail. It is basically based in illusions that are far from reality.
You can excuse yourself or try to evade the reality saying that I am not discussing on the same points. I don't care anymore. But remember that everything related to the human does not work as you would have previewed and if you want to something work you cannot leave that unchecked. And if the "rules" of the system are violated there must be mechanism to prevent that corruption before it is too late.
You've never presented any possible mechanism to prevent the corruption of the system. None. 0.
I've explained thousand times that are words, that the words are nice. But that it is what makes a system real or possible.
You are not addressing the system I advocate: "a market that emerges from people freely exchanging goods and services."
kilgram
04-13-2015, 01:07 PM
You are not addressing the system I advocate: "a market that emerges from people freely exchanging goods and services."
It is what you think. Chris.
Chris, our system is basically based in that with a few exceptions.
Chris
04-13-2015, 01:10 PM
It is what you think. Chris.
Chris, our system is basically based in that with a few exceptions.
And your criticism of that is what? Take care in your response for if your criticism leads to regulating freedom, you are imposing authority by state, which you deny you want.
The Sage of Main Street
04-13-2015, 02:28 PM
Yet you don't trust people to run their own lives the way they see fit. The 1% run our lives to please themselves. Their bootlicking apologists preach the nonsense that such a regime couldn't possibly exist because it has to please the people in order to survive. The just-world fallacy, which leads to passive acceptance and doubt that the rulers are really wrong. That cowardly attitude also leads to blaming some hidden control over our guiltless rulers, reluctantly being forced to hurt us because of whatever conspiracy theory the rulers themselves use to absolve themselves of guilt. Anti-Semitism Always Leave a Yellow Stain.
Even when such ruling classes collapse because of lack of popularity, before that they had the power to impose centuries of unwanted tyranny. You want to trick us into the passive fantasy that they can't be abusing us because, by some Magic Market theory, they wouldn't be able to get away with it.
Chris
04-13-2015, 03:46 PM
The 1% run our lives to please themselves. Their bootlicking apologists preach the nonsense that such a regime couldn't possibly exist because it has to please the people in order to survive. The just-world fallacy, which leads to passive acceptance and doubt that the rulers are really wrong. That cowardly attitude also leads to blaming some hidden control over our guiltless rulers, reluctantly being forced to hurt us because of whatever conspiracy theory the rulers themselves use to absolve themselves of guilt. Anti-Semitism Always Leave a Yellow Stain.
Even when such ruling classes collapse because of lack of popularity, before that they had the power to impose centuries of unwanted tyranny. You want to trick us into the passive fantasy that they can't be abusing us because, by some Magic Market theory, they wouldn't be able to get away with it.
Got to love how people exploit ambiguity. Theory can be guesswork, sure, but in any scientific or systematic field of study is a description, hypothetical, supported by facts, awaiting falsification.
The 1% run our lives to please themselves.
Which must include you for who else would you be trying to please with your Jackson Pollack prose? Oh, wait, bo for a while seemed to understand you, where is he: Translation, please!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.