User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 11:52:40 AM EDT
[#1]
I don't want to be a wet blanket
 , but what I am getting from that primarily is that the author "likes" Rand Paul because of
(a) the hope that he'll be "libertarian" in being anti-war like his dad, and want to reduce military spending/involvement (b) the hope that he will support "immigration reform" i.e. amnesty for all the illegals. So I don't really think it's an example of a liberal "coming around" and supporting a republican. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 11:54:46 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't want to be a wet blanket , but what I am getting from that primarily is that the author "likes" Rand Paul because of
(a) the hope that he'll be "libertarian" in being anti-war like his dad, and want to reduce military spending/involvement (b) the hope that he will support "immigration reform" i.e. amnesty for all the illegals. So I don't really think it's an example of a liberal "coming around" and supporting a republican. This. And his blatant pandering to the Ferguson street rioters also plays well to liberals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:23:44 PM EDT
[#3]
No wet blanket.
The fact is, whatever candidate wins the white house in 16 is flat out guaranteed to have some common ground with the liberals. The question is how much and on what issues. Not wanting to get into wars is (last time I checked) a good thing. I disagree with him on anything approaching amnesty, but If that's my biggest disagreement with him he's head and shoulders above Hillary. Is he a perfect candidate for me? Nope. For you? Nope. For the libtards? Hell no. Could he pull center votes though without fucking us in the ass on all the important parts of the platform though? Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:24:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And his blatant pandering to the Ferguson street rioters also plays well to liberals. Since when is it a liberal thing to want accountability for police brutality? Here in GD, that seems like a pretty common theme. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:30:15 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since when is it a liberal thing to want accountability for police brutality? Here in GD, that seems like a pretty common theme. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And his blatant pandering to the Ferguson street rioters also plays well to liberals. Since when is it a liberal thing to want accountability for police brutality? Here in GD, that seems like a pretty common theme. What brutality? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:30:56 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What brutality? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And his blatant pandering to the Ferguson street rioters also plays well to liberals. Since when is it a liberal thing to want accountability for police brutality? Here in GD, that seems like a pretty common theme. What brutality? You're right. Cops never do wrong. Nothing to see here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:35:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Is he a perfect candidate for me? Nope. For you? Nope. For the libtards? Hell no. Could he pull center votes though without fucking us in the ass on all the important parts of the platform though? Yep. Sure, but the problem is that nobody wins with the center votes. They win by being able to solidly deliver the base AND get enough of the center votes. Rand's issue is that his views on immigration, and being too close to his dad's anti-war stance, will mean that he cannot survive the Republican primaries, nor could he deliver the base if he did become the candidate. That's what makes it so damn hard for Republicans these days - being able to reliably get the base behind you makes it hard to get the independents/moderates in the center.
In some ways, the inevitable legalization of gay marriage and marijuana will HELP Republicans enormously, because soon, the base will realize those are lost issues (and grudgingly accept that those battles are lost), and Republican candidates don't need to make a big deal about it during the primaries, and thus won't turn off the center. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:36:38 PM EDT
[#8]
The really partisan liberals are scared of Rand Paul, go read DU if you can stand it. The moderate Dems I know tend to like him and they're not really thrilled with Warren or Clinton.
If he has a flaw, it's that he learned the viability lesson his dad never did a little too well. He wants to be president and he's willing to play the game to get there. I want him to be president too, and underneath the political realities I believe he's the best candidate we've had in 30 years or more. I wish he had gotten into politics a little earlier, although I don't know that people were ready to hear him before 2010 anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:37:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was.
He will get the Larouche vote as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:38:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Prepare yourself for the onslaught of derp OP.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:40:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right. Cops never do wrong. Nothing to see here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And his blatant pandering to the Ferguson street rioters also plays well to liberals. Since when is it a liberal thing to want accountability for police brutality? Here in GD, that seems like a pretty common theme. What brutality? You're right. Cops never do wrong. Nothing to see here. Rand Paul's pandering went far, far, beyond that. http://www.google.com/search?q=rand+paul+panders+to+ferguson+rioters&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:42:47 PM EDT
[#12]
I made it about two paragraphs in and had to quit. Some people are just broken, unfortunately there are millions of them and they vote Democrat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:43:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was. He will get the Larouche vote as well. It's funny that you say that, because Rand Paul was saying that we should roll in Iraq full force and crush the fuck out of the Islamic State, if I remember correctly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:45:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Rand Paul or chrisp crispy?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:46:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's funny that you say that, because Rand Paul was saying that we should roll in Iraq full force and crush the fuck out of the Islamic State, if I remember correctly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was. He will get the Larouche vote as well. It's funny that you say that, because Rand Paul was saying that we should roll in Iraq full force and crush the fuck out of the Islamic State, if I remember correctly. Mostly to protect our embassy and other US interests, as I recall. He's also said that we shouldn't have ousted Saddam to begin with. His claim is that every time we've given a (more or less) secular dictator the ol' heave-ho, a hyper religious replacement government slides in, making things worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:48:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mostly to protect our embassy and other US interests, as I recall. He's also said that we shouldn't have ousted Saddam to begin with. His claim is that every time we've given a (more or less) secular dictator the ol' heave-ho, a hyper religious replacement government slides in, making things worse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was. He will get the Larouche vote as well. It's funny that you say that, because Rand Paul was saying that we should roll in Iraq full force and crush the fuck out of the Islamic State, if I remember correctly. Mostly to protect our embassy and other US interests, as I recall. He's also said that we shouldn't have ousted Saddam to begin with. His claim is that every time we've given a (more or less) secular dictator the ol' heave-ho, a hyper religious replacement government slides in, making things worse. Hmm |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:48:07 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mostly to protect our embassy and other US interests, as I recall. He's also said that we shouldn't have ousted Saddam to begin with. His claim is that every time we've given a (more or less) secular dictator the ol' heave-ho, a hyper religious replacement government slides in, making things worse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was. He will get the Larouche vote as well. It's funny that you say that, because Rand Paul was saying that we should roll in Iraq full force and crush the fuck out of the Islamic State, if I remember correctly. Mostly to protect our embassy and other US interests, as I recall. He's also said that we shouldn't have ousted Saddam to begin with. His claim is that every time we've given a (more or less) secular dictator the ol' heave-ho, a hyper religious replacement government slides in, making things worse. And it is correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:48:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's funny that you say that, because Rand Paul was saying that we should roll in Iraq full force and crush the fuck out of the Islamic State, if I remember correctly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was. He will get the Larouche vote as well. It's funny that you say that, because Rand Paul was saying that we should roll in Iraq full force and crush the fuck out of the Islamic State, if I remember correctly. Rand Paul supports Obama while claiming "it's Bush's fault". http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-has-put-rand-paul-in-a-very-difficult-position-2014-9 In June, Paul showed his libertarian streak in an interview on NBC's "Meet The Press" where he criticized to an op-ed written by former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney that said Obama's decision to withdraw US troops from Iraq helped ISIS grow in that country. Paul argued Obama was not at fault for the current chaos in Iraq. Instead, Paul laid blame for the ongoing violence there on the military operations in the country launched by the administration of Cheney and President George W. Bush. However, out of the other side of his mouth Rand Paul attacked Obama as well. On September 4, Paul responded to Obama's plans to combat ISIS with an op-ed in Time magazine where he attempted to dismiss the critique he is an "isolationist." In that piece, Paul also attacked Obama for what he described as a "dereliction of duty" by not more aggressively attacking ISIS in Iraq sooner. "Our recent foreign policy has allowed radical jihadists to proliferate. Today, there are more terrorists groups than there were before 9/11, most notably ISIS," Paul wrote. "After all the sacrifice in Afghanistan and Iraq, why do we find ourselves in a more dangerous world? And why, after six years, does President Obama lack a strategy to deal with threats like ISIS?" Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-has-put-rand-paul-in-a-very-difficult-position-2014-9#ixzz3JXAwbxZB |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:51:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No wet blanket. The fact is, whatever candidate wins the white house in 16 is flat out guaranteed to have some common ground with the liberals. The question is how much and on what issues. Not wanting to get into wars is (last time I checked) a good thing. I disagree with him on anything approaching amnesty, but If that's my biggest disagreement with him he's head and shoulders above Hillary. Is he a perfect candidate for me? Nope. For you? Nope. For the libtards? Hell no. Could he pull center votes though without fucking us in the ass on all the important parts of the platform though? Yep. oh look... support of someone who can attract those in the center... someone with moderate views... you mean, like a rino?  still 2 years before the election, and a certain group of people now want to push the center/moderate line OVER CONSERVATIVES? edit - I guess this group of people now want us to stop supporting conservatives and the conservative viewpoint now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 12:53:49 PM EDT
[#20]
snip
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:07:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Rand Paul is perfect because nobody is happy with him. Liberals, Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats doesnt' matter, everybody can find something they don't like about him.
On the flip side everybody can find something they like about him as well. That's called compromise folks, Paul would protect the stuff that actually matters civil liberties and our Constituition. Vote for whomever you want but Paul is a great choice for our country. Unless you're really itching to start popping Pmags. Just my $0.02 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:09:59 PM EDT
[#22]
Of course there are supporters of Rand Paul at HuffPo. It is a conclave of far left loons. They will naturally support the liberal positions of a "libertarian." We've said that here for years--while listening to liars claim the "libertarians" are the "real conservatives."
In order to be a conservative you must hold conservative views. Rand Paul somewhat doesn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:10:42 PM EDT
[#23]
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:15:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? Not a deal breaker for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:18:29 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're right. Cops never do wrong. Nothing to see here. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And his blatant pandering to the Ferguson street rioters also plays well to liberals. Since when is it a liberal thing to want accountability for police brutality? Here in GD, that seems like a pretty common theme. What brutality? You're right. Cops never do wrong. Nothing to see here. You must not ever read my posts in cop threads. I'll be the first one to let you know when I think cops are bad (so much so, the site staff loves to delete my posts). However, I don't think there was police brutality in Ferguson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:22:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? libertarianism is silent on the issue of when personhood begins. I respect a wide range of views on that subject, because although I consider the act of abortion abhorrent I think enforcement presents significant problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:23:49 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? You can be pro life without feeling the need to let government dictate public policy on the matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:23:54 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? One of the ways I differ from a typical "liberaltarian," I believe it is the taking of a life: ie murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:24:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
libertarianism is silent on the issue of when personhood begins. I respect a wide range of views on that subject, because although I consider the act of abortion abhorrent I think enforcement presents significant problems. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? libertarianism is silent on the issue of when personhood begins. I respect a wide range of views on that subject, because although I consider the act of abortion abhorrent I think enforcement presents significant problems. That and there are flat out, full on unapologetic atheists on this site (BustinCaps and VTHOKIESHOOTER come to mind) that are pro-life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:25:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not a deal breaker for me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? Not a deal breaker for me. Thats because you are a common sense libertarian. There are others on here who are liberals with guns that claim to be liber(al)tarians. Im not going to name names but start a Sarvis Va Governor or Va senate thread and they come out in force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:26:00 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Looks like some Libtards can be convinced to leave the Messiah....... Interesting. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html They are just giving him good press no so they can turn on him when it will pay them the biggest dividends come 2016. Pysch-ops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:36:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not a deal breaker for me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? Not a deal breaker for me. Yeah. It's not preferred, but it's not a deal breaker either. The day that abortion, and gay marriage are the most important issues in the US is the day I will sleep like a fucking baby. It also helps that there are SCOTUS decisions stating that the banning of both is unconstitutional. Rand Paul is a RINO. But he's not the worst we could do, by far. He's a freedom loving capitalist, who is fond of guns. He'll do right by me, I imagine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:38:06 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No wet blanket. The fact is, whatever candidate wins the white house in 16 is flat out guaranteed to have some common ground with the liberals. The question is how much and on what issues. Not wanting to get into wars is (last time I checked) a good thing. I disagree with him on anything approaching amnesty, but If that's my biggest disagreement with him he's head and shoulders above Hillary. Is he a perfect candidate for me? Nope. For you? Nope. For the libtards? Hell no. Could he pull center votes though without fucking us in the ass on all the important parts of the platform though? Yep. Kinda agree with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:38:38 PM EDT
[#34]
God forbid a conservative do what it takes to get elected president in this country.
Name me a more pro-gun presidential hopeful right now. By the way that is Rand Paul in my avatar picture, shooting an AR-15 at Knob Creek. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:40:09 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
God forbid a conservative do what it takes to get elected president in this country. Every time someone tries, ARFCOM savages them for being a RINO and a sell-out, and refuses to support them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:50:39 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One of the ways I differ from a typical "liberaltarian," I believe it is the taking of a life: ie murder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? One of the ways I differ from a typical "liberaltarian," I believe it is the taking of a life: ie murder. I will be blunt I want abortion clinics in every fast food joint in america on every street corner in schools or where ever else it is easy to access. Why? Because I would rather have some liberal bitch kill her child in her womb than raise it with her beliefs. Then that will be an enemy on future battlefield America that we have to fight. So I am a staunch conservative but at this point in time abortion is our best friend. Sad to say but true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:55:21 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? Doesn't matter to me. This "liberaltarian" voted basically straight R this last election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 1:57:21 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't matter to me. This "liberaltarian" voted basically straight R this last election. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? Doesn't matter to me. This "liberaltarian" voted basically straight R this last election. Then you aren't a "liberaltarian." They sat out or "voted their conscience" and wrote in Gary Johnson in every spot on the ballot. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:11:09 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then you aren't a "liberaltarian." They sat out or "voted their conscience" and wrote in Gary Johnson in every spot on the ballot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? Doesn't matter to me. This "liberaltarian" voted basically straight R this last election. Then you aren't a "liberaltarian." They sat out or "voted their conscience" and wrote in Gary Johnson in every spot on the ballot. I voted for a Democrat for the State Board of Education, because my district's incumbent (a Republican) is fucking looney tunes.
She won re-election anyway. Ah, well. It was straight (R) otherwise (including non-partisan offices - it ain't hard to figure out in 30 minutes or so while researching candidates). |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:15:37 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure, but the problem is that nobody wins with the center votes. They win by being able to solidly deliver the base AND get enough of the center votes. Rand's issue is that his views on immigration, and being too close to his dad's anti-war stance, will mean that he cannot survive the Republican primaries, nor could he deliver the base if he did become the candidate. That's what makes it so damn hard for Republicans these days - being able to reliably get the base behind you makes it hard to get the independents/moderates in the center.
In some ways, the inevitable legalization of gay marriage and marijuana will HELP Republicans enormously, because soon, the base will realize those are lost issues (and grudgingly accept that those battles are lost), and Republican candidates don't need to make a big deal about it during the primaries, and thus won't turn off the center. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... Is he a perfect candidate for me? Nope. For you? Nope. For the libtards? Hell no. Could he pull center votes though without fucking us in the ass on all the important parts of the platform though? Yep. Sure, but the problem is that nobody wins with the center votes. They win by being able to solidly deliver the base AND get enough of the center votes. Rand's issue is that his views on immigration, and being too close to his dad's anti-war stance, will mean that he cannot survive the Republican primaries, nor could he deliver the base if he did become the candidate. That's what makes it so damn hard for Republicans these days - being able to reliably get the base behind you makes it hard to get the independents/moderates in the center.
In some ways, the inevitable legalization of gay marriage and marijuana will HELP Republicans enormously, because soon, the base will realize those are lost issues (and grudgingly accept that those battles are lost), and Republican candidates don't need to make a big deal about it during the primaries, and thus won't turn off the center. I won't argue much on his ability to survive the primaries based on the popularity of his positions. I'm banking on the fact that there are movers and shakers in any party that shape the debate and the terms under which the primaries happen. Based on what they did TO Ron Paul and in favor of Romney, etc, I'm operating on the hypothesis that the approval of the mover shaker types is powerful enough to sway people to choose the one that will win despite having a disagreement or two. Let's face it, the GOP nominated tax and spend gun grabbers and socialized medicine types the last two times. No reason they couldn't get the base to approve whatever they wanted it to approve if they decided that was the way to go. Trust Hillary to motivate the GOP base. She'll do it way better than the GOP ever could.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:17:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mostly to protect our embassy and other US interests, as I recall. He's also said that we shouldn't have ousted Saddam to begin with. His claim is that every time we've given a (more or less) secular dictator the ol' heave-ho, a hyper religious replacement government slides in, making things worse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was. He will get the Larouche vote as well. It's funny that you say that, because Rand Paul was saying that we should roll in Iraq full force and crush the fuck out of the Islamic State, if I remember correctly. Mostly to protect our embassy and other US interests, as I recall. He's also said that we shouldn't have ousted Saddam to begin with. His claim is that every time we've given a (more or less) secular dictator the ol' heave-ho, a hyper religious replacement government slides in, making things worse. And you have to admit he's probably right about Iraq. This said by a guy who spent 4 years over there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:23:35 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
oh look... support of someone who can attract those in the center... someone with moderate views... you mean, like a rino? http://i58.tinypic.com/2u77f4m.jpg still 2 years before the election, and a certain group of people now want to push the center/moderate line OVER CONSERVATIVES? edit - I guess this group of people now want us to stop supporting conservatives and the conservative viewpoint now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No wet blanket. The fact is, whatever candidate wins the white house in 16 is flat out guaranteed to have some common ground with the liberals. The question is how much and on what issues. Not wanting to get into wars is (last time I checked) a good thing. I disagree with him on anything approaching amnesty, but If that's my biggest disagreement with him he's head and shoulders above Hillary. Is he a perfect candidate for me? Nope. For you? Nope. For the libtards? Hell no. Could he pull center votes though without fucking us in the ass on all the important parts of the platform though? Yep. oh look... support of someone who can attract those in the center... someone with moderate views... you mean, like a rino? http://i58.tinypic.com/2u77f4m.jpg still 2 years before the election, and a certain group of people now want to push the center/moderate line OVER CONSERVATIVES? edit - I guess this group of people now want us to stop supporting conservatives and the conservative viewpoint now. We should get something straight. There are three definitions of RINO being used. Definition 1. GOP candidates who side with the Democrats on fiscal issues. (Pinko tax and spend types) Definition 2. GOP candidates who side with the Democrats on social issues. (Nanny state gun grabber types) Definition 3. GOP candidates who fail to march in lock step right off a fucking cliff with the party as it self immolates on the altar of social authoritarianism. (Rand Paul types) It sounds like you're using definition 3. I prefer to like candidates who break step where individual freedom is increased by breaking step. In fact, nominating one is pretty much the only way the GOP will ever get me back, and I'm FAR from alone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:24:54 PM EDT
[#43]
It's not about Obama so much, it's about Hillary. Most liberals are on the bandwagon but a significant portion are not happy with her impending nomination. She voted for the Iraq War and is a big supporter of the NSA spying programs, while at the same time you have Rand Paul who is a big departure from the disaster that was Bush/Cheney so in this situation there might be a lot of crossover.
Quoted:
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was. He will get the Larouche vote as well. If you like the way US foreign policy has been going for the past decade then Hillary Clinton is probably a better choice for you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:25:30 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? Like I said, I don't agree with everything he says. I can live with that position though if it gets me an electable pro gun pro free market pro individual liberty president. HELL yeah I'll suffer a pro life president to get that. It's not like he's gonna single handedly overturn RvW. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:30:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said, I don't agree with everything he says. I can live with that position though if it gets me an electable pro gun pro free market pro individual liberty president. HELL yeah I'll suffer a pro life president to get that. It's not like he's gonna single handedly overturn RvW. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? Like I said, I don't agree with everything he says. I can live with that position though if it gets me an electable pro gun pro free market pro individual liberty president. HELL yeah I'll suffer a pro life president to get that. It's not like he's gonna single handedly overturn RvW. It's moot for me, because Roe v. Wade is going NOWHERE. It's a settled issue. Done. If Reagan (and two Bushes) couldn't do shit about it, it's done. And support for it's overturning has only declined in the years since. My only advice to Rand would be to: 1. NOT make it a campaign issue (and I think he knows this) 2. If asked (they always ask Republicans in debates and on the cable news circuit), acknowledge the reality that the decision is never going to be overturned, that it's time to move on, and that he as President can do next to nothing about it. He can do this while saying he's pro-life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:31:17 PM EDT
[#46]
Sounds like Rand actually stands a really great chance of winning a general election. The GOP better hurry up and start building support for a John McCain or Lindsay Graham primary run before it's too late.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:32:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Who are the alternatives at this point, do we think? Ben Carson? Rick Santorum? Mitt Romney again? Jeb Bush? Gary Johnson again? New Jersey's Eric Cartman?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:47:14 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Who are the alternatives at this point, do we think? Ben Carson? Rick Santorum? Mitt Romney again? Jeb Bush? Gary Johnson again? New Jersey's Eric Cartman? I'm expecting the primary to come down to Rand and Jeb. Hopefully lots of people run but nobody who'll pull votes from Rand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 2:57:26 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I will be blunt I want abortion clinics in every fast food joint in america on every street corner in schools or where ever else it is easy to access. Why? Because I would rather have some liberal bitch kill her child in her womb than raise it with her beliefs. Then that will be an enemy on future battlefield America that we have to fight. So I am a staunch conservative but at this point in time abortion is our best friend. Sad to say but true. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You liberaltarians do realize he is pro-life right? Doesnt that make him to much of a "bible-thumper" for you? One of the ways I differ from a typical "liberaltarian," I believe it is the taking of a life: ie murder. I will be blunt I want abortion clinics in every fast food joint in america on every street corner in schools or where ever else it is easy to access. Why? Because I would rather have some liberal bitch kill her child in her womb than raise it with her beliefs. Then that will be an enemy on future battlefield America that we have to fight. So I am a staunch conservative but at this point in time abortion is our best friend. Sad to say but true. I feel the same way, and hate myself for it. 
Thats why its not really an issue for me anymore. I just brought it up to see who would take the bait. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:20:54 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every time someone tries, ARFCOM savages them for being a RINO and a sell-out, and refuses to support them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
God forbid a conservative do what it takes to get elected president in this country. Every time someone tries, ARFCOM savages them for being a RINO and a sell-out, and refuses to support them. Whether or not a particular ARFCOM ideology savages a political candidate depends on whether or not the canditate's name ends with Paul. In which case, the libertarian crowd suddenly decides that in the case of a Paul; they no longer need to remain ideological purists. Anyone else they disparage with the sobriquet of RINO. Neither of the Pauls is ideologically a conservative which is why they appeal so strongly to liberals, college kids, and the 99 percenters. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
