User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:22:53 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. The Bush family is a poisoned well. No way the GOP would win running Jeb. The Democrats could run a rabid chimpanzee or the wicked witch of Arkansas and beat a Bush. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:36:15 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Which potential candidate do you prefer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:42:17 PM EDT
[#3]
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 opened up his mouth and stood in line with liberals who wanted to "End the Militarization of the Police" in a city that was rioting, looting, shooting at police, shooting other innocent people, burning buildings down, throwing molotov cocktails, and other BS. His support of that basically told me all I needed to know about him. Do you honestly think that they would stop with the ending of the "militarization of police" and not go after civilian ownership? I men if it too unsafe for the police then the average Joe Blow shouldn't have it either. Its a slippery slope and he fell in line with it like a good little liberal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:44:30 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rand opened up his mouth and stood in line with liberals who wanted to "End the Militarization of the Police" in a city that was rioting, looting, shooting at police, shooting other innocent people, burning buildings down, throwing molotov cocktails, and other BS. His support of that basically told me all I needed to know about him. Do you honestly think that they would stop with the ending of the "militarization of police" and not go after civilian ownership? I men if it too unsafe for the police then the average Joe Blow shouldn't have it either. Its a slippery slope and he fell in line with it like a good little liberal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 opened up his mouth and stood in line with liberals who wanted to "End the Militarization of the Police" in a city that was rioting, looting, shooting at police, shooting other innocent people, burning buildings down, throwing molotov cocktails, and other BS. His support of that basically told me all I needed to know about him. Do you honestly think that they would stop with the ending of the "militarization of police" and not go after civilian ownership? I men if it too unsafe for the police then the average Joe Blow shouldn't have it either. Its a slippery slope and he fell in line with it like a good little liberal. Well the police were threatening to kill media, lasing random people with rifles, and shooting media with shotgun LTLs and luanching tear gas at them. And they just stood back and watched the mob burn down a building or two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:50:12 PM EDT
[#5]
Isn't it amazing at what can be accomplished when you drop the partisan politics? Rand Paul reaches out to everyone in the country, not just his partisan buddies. That is why liberals don't go running away screaming from him like they do every other Republican. The hard core, kool-aid drinking, establishment, partisan GOPers on this site won't like it but at this point their opinion is pretty much useless.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:51:15 PM EDT
[#6]
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 Birds of a feather... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:52:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rand opened up his mouth and stood in line with liberals who wanted to "End the Militarization of the Police" in a city that was rioting, looting, shooting at police, shooting other innocent people, burning buildings down, throwing molotov cocktails, and other BS. His support of that basically told me all I needed to know about him. Do you honestly think that they would stop with the ending of the "militarization of police" and not go after civilian ownership? I men if it too unsafe for the police then the average Joe Blow shouldn't have it either. Its a slippery slope and he fell in line with it like a good little liberal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 opened up his mouth and stood in line with liberals who wanted to "End the Militarization of the Police" in a city that was rioting, looting, shooting at police, shooting other innocent people, burning buildings down, throwing molotov cocktails, and other BS. His support of that basically told me all I needed to know about him. Do you honestly think that they would stop with the ending of the "militarization of police" and not go after civilian ownership? I men if it too unsafe for the police then the average Joe Blow shouldn't have it either. Its a slippery slope and he fell in line with it like a good little liberal. Yeah; Rand Paul has taken a great position regarding the reasons for looting, rioting and mayhem perpetrated in Fergusen by the urban street thugs. "Society's fault". http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/ 
The gentle giant victim is at the lower right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:53:16 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was. He will get the Larouche vote as well. Yep. About as viable a political candidate as that guy that stands on street corners talking to a light pole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 3:55:04 PM EDT
[#9]
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.  If Rand can play the flim-flam man to the libtards that's a good thing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:00:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well the police were threatening to kill media, lasing random people with rifles, and shooting media with shotgun LTLs and luanching tear gas at them. And they just stood back and watched the mob burn down a building or two. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Rand opened up his mouth and stood in line with liberals who wanted to "End the Militarization of the Police" in a city that was rioting, looting, shooting at police, shooting other innocent people, burning buildings down, throwing molotov cocktails, and other BS. His support of that basically told me all I needed to know about him. Do you honestly think that they would stop with the ending of the "militarization of police" and not go after civilian ownership? I men if it too unsafe for the police then the average Joe Blow shouldn't have it either. Its a slippery slope and he fell in line with it like a good little liberal. Well the police were threatening to kill media, lasing random people with rifles, and shooting media with shotgun LTLs and luanching tear gas at them. And they just stood back and watched the mob burn down a building or two. Some police were doing that not all police were doing that. Those that did those acts should be dealt with. I am not willing to limit how an officer in WI can protect himself, another, or his community because of what some tard in Ferguson MO did. That is like saying "well because some guy shot up a school with an AR15, nobody should own AR15s". That is a liberal tactic and is pathetic. Please tell me what those cops were supposed to do to stop a mob from burning down those buildings and randomly shooting at people? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:02:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If Rand can play the flim-flam man to the libtards that's a good thing.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. If Rand can play the flim-flam man to the libtards that's a good thing.
Yeah, he's playing flim flam alright. http://www.ar15.com/mobile/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1675039&page=1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:10:39 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't it amazing at what can be accomplished when you drop the partisan politics? Rand Paul reaches out to everyone in the country, not just his partisan buddies. That is why liberals don't go running away screaming from him like they do every other Republican. The hard core, kool-aid drinking, establishment, partisan GOPers on this site won't like it but at this point their opinion is pretty much useless. Yep pretty clear that the GOP faithful here interpret any discussion of fixing problems with immigration or racial tensions as siding with the liberals, therefore Rand is unelectable. 
I stand with Rand. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:15:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was. He will get the Larouche vote as well. Wisdom coming from Wisconsin! I agree 100% with you. The only other "So Called Republican" that disgusts me more than Paul, is Crispy Cream. Funny the Ron Paul signs I saw around here in 2012, changed to 0BAMA signs once he lost in the primary. That should tell you something. I won't vote for that Turd. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:15:48 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't it amazing at what can be accomplished when you drop the partisan politics? Rand Paul reaches out to everyone in the country, not just his partisan buddies. That is why liberals don't go running away screaming from him like they do every other Republican. The hard core, kool-aid drinking, establishment, partisan GOPers on this site won't like it but at this point their opinion is pretty much useless. Yup. He's a populist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:21:00 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well the police were threatening to kill media, lasing random people with rifles, and shooting media with shotgun LTLs and luanching tear gas at them. And they just stood back and watched the mob burn down a building or two. Rand was RIGHT on that issue. Both on the score that we've turned our police into something that acts like an occupying army sometimes (and that being a bad thing) and on the fact that we've as a society, created the permanent underclass that produces so much of the crime in our country. Between the drug war, paying people to not work, and yeah, some of us being assholes to other folks because they look different, we've helped make the bed we're lying in. What we SHOULD do is acknowledge that, and work to stop doing what's causing it. We should be ending the drug war, phasing out and fixing welfare, and removing racist policies from the govt. We should NOT be arming up the local PD to take on Armageddon because that's the quickest way to CAUSE the fucking thing. Yep, but let's vilify Rand for being against having cops that feel free to act like that because liberals agree with him. That'll be real effective. Conservatives should agree with him. They would if they would bother to look beyond the spin from the establishment GOP guys he's scaring. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:21:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. OK so Rand Paul is not ideologically a conservative. I guess you would rather have another George W. Bush who went on record as being willing to make the AWB permanent if the bill got to his desk. Or maybe you'd rather have John McCain or Mitt Romney, who are both for an AWB. Those guys are so ideologically conservative... I ask again, name me a current presidential hopeful that is more pro-gun than Rand Paul. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:22:20 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. About as viable a political candidate as that guy that stands on street corners talking to a light pole. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Rand Paul is an isolationist nutcase like his father was. He will get the Larouche vote as well. Yep. About as viable a political candidate as that guy that stands on street corners talking to a light pole. Yep.,... Let's run Romney or McCain again. Maybe the fatty from Jersey can win. Lol! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 4:45:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Birds of a feather... Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Birds of a feather... Bingo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:13:58 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bingo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 Birds of a feather... Bingo. Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:18:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rand was RIGHT on that issue. Both on the score that we've turned our police into something that acts like an occupying army sometimes (and that being a bad thing) and on the fact that we've as a society, created the permanent underclass that produces so much of the crime in our country. Between the drug war, paying people to not work, and yeah, some of us being assholes to other folks because they look different, we've helped make the bed we're lying in. What we SHOULD do is acknowledge that, and work to stop doing what's causing it. We should be ending the drug war, phasing out and fixing welfare, and removing racist policies from the govt. We should NOT be arming up the local PD to take on Armageddon because that's the quickest way to CAUSE the fucking thing. Yep, but let's vilify Rand for being against having cops that feel free to act like that because liberals agree with him. That'll be real effective. Conservatives should agree with him. They would if they would bother to look beyond the spin from the establishment GOP guys he's scaring. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well the police were threatening to kill media, lasing random people with rifles, and shooting media with shotgun LTLs and luanching tear gas at them. And they just stood back and watched the mob burn down a building or two. Rand was RIGHT on that issue. Both on the score that we've turned our police into something that acts like an occupying army sometimes (and that being a bad thing) and on the fact that we've as a society, created the permanent underclass that produces so much of the crime in our country. Between the drug war, paying people to not work, and yeah, some of us being assholes to other folks because they look different, we've helped make the bed we're lying in. What we SHOULD do is acknowledge that, and work to stop doing what's causing it. We should be ending the drug war, phasing out and fixing welfare, and removing racist policies from the govt. We should NOT be arming up the local PD to take on Armageddon because that's the quickest way to CAUSE the fucking thing. Yep, but let's vilify Rand for being against having cops that feel free to act like that because liberals agree with him. That'll be real effective. Conservatives should agree with him. They would if they would bother to look beyond the spin from the establishment GOP guys he's scaring. Do you honestly think that the (D)s would stop with police not having that stuff and not move to all citizens? God forbid a police department have a way to deal with a riot and the officers protect themselves, other innocents, and their community. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:48:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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). I've not posted this until now, but I voted for a Dem two weeks ago too. It was for Sheriff--running unopposed and so pro-gun he (along with a number of others around the state) made a big deal of doing a news conference to implement his own "Constitutional carry" when the legislature failed to live up to the court order a year ago. I will vote for the Dem state's attorney when he's up again too, and for the same reason. They've earned my vote, which is no doubt why they run unopposed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:55:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Bush family is a poisoned well. No way the GOP would win running Jeb. The Democrats could run a rabid chimpanzee or the wicked witch of Arkansas and beat a Bush. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. The Bush family is a poisoned well. No way the GOP would win running Jeb. The Democrats could run a rabid chimpanzee or the wicked witch of Arkansas and beat a Bush. Completely agree with this. Although I think Jeb would be a great president, I don't think he is electable at this point. May be couple of cycles later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:55:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 Birds of a feather... Bingo. Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. Rand Paul is throwing Rand Paul under the bus, at least for my vote. I was for Rand until he decided to stick his feet into the social justice and anti-police pool in Ferguson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 5:59:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
. Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:02:29 PM EDT
[#25]
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. Tell me more about how all libertarians are exactly the same. I guess all Republicans are exactly the same also? Can I look at John McCain's views on an AWB and assume that all Republicans would support an AWB? Lumping all small-government leaning people into your "liberaltarian" bucket and assuming they all agree on every issue and all vote exactly the same does nothing to help whatever argument you are trying to make. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:12:11 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. Not true. Obama was widely regarded as the hottest up-and-coming Democrat in 2006, that would have been over two years after he gave the speech that catapulted him onto the national stage at the 2004 convention. You may not have seen him coming, but a lot of people did. It isn't early at all. Anyone serious about a run has already started running whether they've announced or not. A presidential run isn't something a nobody can put together in six months. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:15:21 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell me more about how all libertarians are exactly the same. I guess all Republicans are exactly the same also? Can I look at John McCain's views on an AWB and assume that all Republicans would support an AWB? Lumping all small-government leaning people into your "liberaltarian" bucket and assuming they all agree on every issue and all vote exactly the same does nothing to help whatever argument you are trying to make. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Tell me more about how all libertarians are exactly the same. I guess all Republicans are exactly the same also? Can I look at John McCain's views on an AWB and assume that all Republicans would support an AWB? Lumping all small-government leaning people into your "liberaltarian" bucket and assuming they all agree on every issue and all vote exactly the same does nothing to help whatever argument you are trying to make. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:16:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not true. Obama was widely regarded as the hottest up-and-coming Democrat in 2006, that would have been over two years after he gave the speech that catapulted him onto the national stage at the 2004 convention. You may not have seen him coming, but a lot of people did. It isn't early at all. Anyone serious about a run has already started running whether they've announced or not. A presidential run isn't something a nobody can put together in six months. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. Not true. Obama was widely regarded as the hottest up-and-coming Democrat in 2006, that would have been over two years after he gave the speech that catapulted him onto the national stage at the 2004 convention. You may not have seen him coming, but a lot of people did. It isn't early at all. Anyone serious about a run has already started running whether they've announced or not. A presidential run isn't something a nobody can put together in six months. Then name the candidate(s) we should be googly eyed over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:17:35 PM EDT
[#29]
The NY Times endorsed McCain. It was an action designed to support their desired end-state.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:17:52 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. I didn't know giving keynote speeches at the DNC Convention in 2004 wasn't considered the "national stage". There's only two years left maybe it's time the GOP got around to finding some candidates since we currently have none. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:18:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which potential candidate do you prefer? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Which potential candidate do you prefer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:19:33 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since when is it a liberal thing to want accountability for police brutality self defense shooting? 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 self defense shooting? Here in GD, that seems like a pretty common theme. Be careful of when and what you decide to plant your feet down in support of, some of it will always stick to your shoe enough to make you go to the grass and drag your feet to get it off, or worse grab a stick and pick at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:19:35 PM EDT
[#33]
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. Lesser of two evils... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:20:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pay no attention to him. He needs Reince Priebus to tell him what to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. Which potential candidate do you prefer? Which candidate do you prefer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:23:42 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. lol whut
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:27:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Fuck, I hope Paul doesn't turn into another "We President Now" bobble head.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:30:03 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol whut Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. lol whut There was zero discussion of him running for POTUS--not this soon. Perhaps behind the scenes, but two weeks after an election the voting public isn't interested in who they will vote for in two years. The idea of settling on a candidate at this early stage is just silly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:30:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. Tell me more about how all libertarians are exactly the same. I guess all Republicans are exactly the same also? Can I look at John McCain's views on an AWB and assume that all Republicans would support an AWB? Lumping all small-government leaning people into your "liberaltarian" bucket and assuming they all agree on every issue and all vote exactly the same does nothing to help whatever argument you are trying to make. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? I see you saying all "liberaltarians" sat out the election or wrote in Gary Johnson. I see the word "liberaltarian" used on this board as a pejorative term that implies that people who identify as Libertarian are actually liberals. So when I see it spelled that way here I read it as a blanket statement about all Libertarians, written by someone who dislikes them. Am I wrong about that? Whatever statement you are trying to make didn't come across well on this end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 6:58:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Which candidate do you prefer? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Which potential candidate do you prefer? Which candidate do you prefer? future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage." But since I'm not to chickenshit to say who I could support I'll mention them. Right now, as of today, I could get behind Rand or Scott Walker or even Jim Jordan if any of them would decide to run. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:03:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. It's also a non sequitur intended to deflect well deserved criticism away from Rand Paul and onto any candidate I could possibly name as my personal choice at this juncture. Fact is; I favored Rand Paul until he showed his true colors with his pandering Ferguson Op-Ed piece. Then he followed up with his flip flopping double talking on the Iraq/ISIS matter. As another poster has already said; I now hold Rand Paul just a step above New Jersey Governor Crispycreme Lardass, and if the choice were between only those two I'd hold my nose and vote for Paul. Hopefully, that won't need to be the case since Rand Paul's racial pandering and waffling on middle east foreign policy has been rather pathetic to watch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:35:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see you saying all "liberaltarians" sat out the election or wrote in Gary Johnson. I see the word "liberaltarian" used on this board as a pejorative term that implies that people who identify as Libertarian are actually liberals. So when I see it spelled that way here I read it as a blanket statement about all Libertarians, written by someone who dislikes them. Am I wrong about that? Whatever statement you are trying to make didn't come across well on this end. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
. I see you saying all "liberaltarians" sat out the election or wrote in Gary Johnson. I see the word "liberaltarian" used on this board as a pejorative term that implies that people who identify as Libertarian are actually liberals. So when I see it spelled that way here I read it as a blanket statement about all Libertarians, written by someone who dislikes them. Am I wrong about that? Whatever statement you are trying to make didn't come across well on this end. I told a "libertarian" he is NOT a "liberaltarian" so you then accuse me of calling all libertarians liberaltarians. See a problem with that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:36:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's an idiotic question. " There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage." But since I'm not to chickenshit to say who I could support I'll mention them. Right now, as of today, I could get behind Rand or Scott Walker or even Jim Jordan if any of them would decide to run. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. Which potential candidate do you prefer? Which candidate do you prefer? But since I'm not to chickenshit to say who I could support I'll mention them. Right now, as of today, I could get behind Rand or Scott Walker or even Jim Jordan if any of them would decide to run. So a bunch of hypotheticals. See my point? I wasn't trying to be snarky--it's just too early to have a meaningful discussion, so there's no point in asking.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:38:07 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's also a non sequitur intended to deflect well deserved criticism away from Rand Paul and onto any candidate I could possibly name as my personal choice at this juncture. Fact is; I favored Rand Paul until he showed his true colors with his pandering Ferguson Op-Ed piece. Then he followed up with his flip flopping double talking on the Iraq/ISIS matter. As another poster has already said; I now hold Rand Paul just a step above New Jersey Governor Crispycreme Lardass, and if the choice were between only those two I'd hold my nose and vote for Paul. Hopefully, that won't need to be the case since Rand Paul's racial pandering and waffling on middle east foreign policy has been rather pathetic to watch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
. It's also a non sequitur intended to deflect well deserved criticism away from Rand Paul and onto any candidate I could possibly name as my personal choice at this juncture. Fact is; I favored Rand Paul until he showed his true colors with his pandering Ferguson Op-Ed piece. Then he followed up with his flip flopping double talking on the Iraq/ISIS matter. As another poster has already said; I now hold Rand Paul just a step above New Jersey Governor Crispycreme Lardass, and if the choice were between only those two I'd hold my nose and vote for Paul. Hopefully, that won't need to be the case since Rand Paul's racial pandering and waffling on middle east foreign policy has been rather pathetic to watch. In months past I posted "I stand with Rand" several times myself. That's why the vetting process is long and tiresome--like dating.
Edit to add: And before the locust swarm envelopes me with "YOU SUPPORT CHRISTIE!!"--I would vote for Rand Paul if he is the GOP candidate over whatever Dem runs. I will not likely vote for him in the primary, though I don't fully rule it out either. A LOT can happen between now and then, which has been my point all along. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:43:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In months past I posted "I stand with Rand" several times myself. That's why the vetting process is long and tiresome--like dating.
Edit to add: And before the locust swarm envelopes me with "YOU SUPPORT CHRISTIE!!"--I would vote for Rand Paul if he is the GOP candidate over whatever Dem runs. I will not likely vote for him in the primary, though I don't fully rule it out either. A LOT can happen between now and then, which has been my point all along. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. It's also a non sequitur intended to deflect well deserved criticism away from Rand Paul and onto any candidate I could possibly name as my personal choice at this juncture. Fact is; I favored Rand Paul until he showed his true colors with his pandering Ferguson Op-Ed piece. Then he followed up with his flip flopping double talking on the Iraq/ISIS matter. As another poster has already said; I now hold Rand Paul just a step above New Jersey Governor Crispycreme Lardass, and if the choice were between only those two I'd hold my nose and vote for Paul. Hopefully, that won't need to be the case since Rand Paul's racial pandering and waffling on middle east foreign policy has been rather pathetic to watch. In months past I posted "I stand with Rand" several times myself. That's why the vetting process is long and tiresome--like dating.
Edit to add: And before the locust swarm envelopes me with "YOU SUPPORT CHRISTIE!!"--I would vote for Rand Paul if he is the GOP candidate over whatever Dem runs. I will not likely vote for him in the primary, though I don't fully rule it out either. A LOT can happen between now and then, which has been my point all along. Exactly, but it's still not acceptable because you didn't swear undying fealty to Rand Paul.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:47:33 PM EDT
[#45]
I thought every sensible human being is "anti war". I mean seriously, who wants their kids or friends/neighbors kids going and getting killed. Sometimes war is necessary but to rip someone as anti war is stupid.
The talking heads always saying "we should do this or that" have never been or never will fight for shit. They just let others go to die and then do news stories on them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:47:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In months past I posted "I stand with Rand" several times myself. That's why the vetting process is long and tiresome--like dating.
Edit to add: And before the locust swarm envelopes me with "YOU SUPPORT CHRISTIE!!"--I would vote for Rand Paul if he is the GOP candidate over whatever Dem runs. I will not likely vote for him in the primary, though I don't fully rule it out either. A LOT can happen between now and then, which has been my point all along. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. It's also a non sequitur intended to deflect well deserved criticism away from Rand Paul and onto any candidate I could possibly name as my personal choice at this juncture. Fact is; I favored Rand Paul until he showed his true colors with his pandering Ferguson Op-Ed piece. Then he followed up with his flip flopping double talking on the Iraq/ISIS matter. As another poster has already said; I now hold Rand Paul just a step above New Jersey Governor Crispycreme Lardass, and if the choice were between only those two I'd hold my nose and vote for Paul. Hopefully, that won't need to be the case since Rand Paul's racial pandering and waffling on middle east foreign policy has been rather pathetic to watch. In months past I posted "I stand with Rand" several times myself. That's why the vetting process is long and tiresome--like dating.
Edit to add: And before the locust swarm envelopes me with "YOU SUPPORT CHRISTIE!!"--I would vote for Rand Paul if he is the GOP candidate over whatever Dem runs. I will not likely vote for him in the primary, though I don't fully rule it out either. A LOT can happen between now and then, which has been my point all along. It's a valid question to ask when someone is willing to toss a candidate under the bus for the high crimes of "admitting there is racial tension between blacks and law enforcement" and "maybe our middle east policies didn't work so well". Factor in your crazies like cm who are crying out "OMG Rand supported Mitch McConnell in his reelection, therefore he's a member of the establishment!" and it all looks rather pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:50:04 PM EDT
[#47]
Fuck Rand and his views on free market economics, state's rights and a more cost effective foreign policy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:54:43 PM EDT
[#48]
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. God has the power to stop people from having an abortion. He gives us free will to choose what is right. If you choose poorly that is unfortunate but I don't believe I'm better than God so I don't try to override his authority. Apparently that the part "conservatives" can't deal with. They think God doesn't want you to have free will. They want you to do what they think is right or your a kook
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 7:55:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then name the candidate(s) we should be googly eyed over. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. Since you ignored the last poster asking, who is your candidate again? The GOP hardliners have been looking to throw Rand under the bus for any reason they can come up with. It's rather pathetic to watch. I'm sure he ignored it because it's an idiotic question. There IS no candidate. None. The election is too far into the future. At this time in 2006 Obama didn't exist on the national stage. Not true. Obama was widely regarded as the hottest up-and-coming Democrat in 2006, that would have been over two years after he gave the speech that catapulted him onto the national stage at the 2004 convention. You may not have seen him coming, but a lot of people did. It isn't early at all. Anyone serious about a run has already started running whether they've announced or not. A presidential run isn't something a nobody can put together in six months. Then name the candidate(s) we should be googly eyed over. Not sure what you mean. All I'm advocating is not beating up on the ones we have. Particularly over the stupid shit people have been bashing Paul over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/19/2014 8:19:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I told a "libertarian" he is NOT a "liberaltarian" so you then accuse me of calling all libertarians liberaltarians. See a problem with that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
. I see you saying all "liberaltarians" sat out the election or wrote in Gary Johnson. I see the word "liberaltarian" used on this board as a pejorative term that implies that people who identify as Libertarian are actually liberals. So when I see it spelled that way here I read it as a blanket statement about all Libertarians, written by someone who dislikes them. Am I wrong about that? Whatever statement you are trying to make didn't come across well on this end. I told a "libertarian" he is NOT a "liberaltarian" so you then accuse me of calling all libertarians liberaltarians. See a problem with that? So you are using "liberaltarian" as a word with a different meaning than libertarian. I've seen other people on here use the two versions interchangeably, with the "liberaltarian" spelling simply adding the implication that the writer dislikes the group he is referring to. I guess my reading comprehension stops where made-up words start being used. |
|
|
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.
