And, Just Like That, He Lost Their Votes

[Denny347]

Uh.... No.

Methinks you haven't kept up with my posting history if you think I believe the Republicans are FOR FREEDOM. I don't believe that at all. Not even remotely. And I sure as hell won't vote for either the (D) OR the (R). They've both sold us out.

I am not familiar with your history so I will take you at your word. That is the frustrating part. I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative nor do I see eye to eye with Libertarians. I'm my own party I guess. Both the Dems and Repubs are hypocrites and I never understood the blind allegiances to those parties. I'm the most frustrated at voting time, I have yet to miss an election since turning 18, 22 yrs ago.

 

[jamil]

The problem is simple: we're not compromising a bit at a time for what we want. Instead of gaining something with every compromise, we're compromising things AWAY (maybe YOU'RE not, but WE are). We're giving up less now so we can give up more later, the next time we are pushed to "compromise." THAT is the reality of what has been happening. It only took me a little more than 25 years to finally figure this out.

Where will we be after another 30 years of this sort of compromise?



This.

Jeez, some of you guys must think your ideal POTUS will just walk into the oval office on his first day and strike every anti-liberty law off the books in one stroke of the pen. That kind of power can only exist in a totalitarian government.

In THIS republic, opposing sides also have a vote. You can complain all you want about the unconstitutionality of all their crap, but at the end of the day we still have the PATRIOT ACT, and NDAA, and the war on drugs, and the war on poverty, and drones, and gun control, and, et cetera.

You may *think* the warm fuzziness of "principle" is better, but in practical terms it doesn't get the job done. The opposition understands the practicality of politics, one patriot act at a time. We have all those laws because they're getting it done. All or nothing isn't getting it done. You roll your eyes when we say that, but what about "ALL" would you exclude?

I wish we had more liberty minded folks like Rand in government who understand politics. You can hold out for 100% of your wishlist and stay at 1%, or you can be realistic and understand you can't get everything, and widen that support percentage into what is a viable contender.

 

[jbombelli]

Jeez, some of you guys must think your ideal POTUS will just walk into the oval office on his first day and strike every anti-liberty law off the books in one stroke of the pen. That kind of power can only exist in a totalitarian government.

No... I don't think that. All I can ask is that he TRY and DO HIS BEST. That's all.

In THIS republic, opposing sides also have a vote. You can complain all you want about the unconstitutionality of all their crap, but at the end of the day we still have the PATRIOT ACT, and NDAA, and the war on drugs, and the war on poverty, and drones, and gun control, and, et cetera.

YOUR guys brought us those things. Remind me again why I should vote for more of that?

You may *think* the warm fuzziness of "principle" is better, but in practical terms it doesn't get the job done. The opposition understands the practicality of politics, one patriot act at a time. We have all those laws because they're getting it done. All or nothing isn't getting it done. You roll your eyes when we say that, but what about "ALL" would you exclude?

Enjoy your Patriot Act, your NDAA, your asset forfeiture, your warrantless wire taps, your secret courts, your President having the power to order people killed without any review ... you're bringing it on yourself; YOU'RE voting FOR it. At least I vote against that stuff.

I wish we had more liberty minded folks like Rand in government who understand politics. You can hold out for 100% of your wishlist and stay at 1%, or you can be realistic and understand you can't get everything, and widen that support percentage into what is a viable contender.

Your opinion that RAND is a liberty-minded person is flawed. He's no more liberty-minded than the rest of them. To wit: the war on drugs. He's all in favor of continuing it, including all the asset forfeitures that go along with it, all the police state tactics, all of it.

You say we can't get everything - but every step of the way not only are not not getting ANYTHING, we're LOSING. And you're voting for it. Losing some vs. losing more is no choice at all for me. But I guess that's what you consider "progress"?

 

[jamil]

I actually do agree with you. I've said before, the Republicans could get my vote if they would put up a candidate who I thought would try to advance liberty overall, even a little bit. It's been a long time since they nominated one. Romney didn't cut it. They've all been statists, at heart.

I do have to wonder just how much Rand really cares about liberty if he doesn't even support marijuana legalization. But, like I said, I haven't ruled him out completely yet.

Not supporting legalization and agreeing not to pursue it are two different things. It doesn't mean that if both the House and Senate send a bill to the President's desk, that he wouldn't sign it. But that's not a likely scenario, which is kinda the point. It's like a pro-life candidate not pushing that kind of legislation because the current political climate makes it unlikely to get anywhere.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

I regret attempting to have a rational discussion with you.

It was my bad. I left my tinfoil at home today.

 

[steveh_131]

Not supporting legalization and agreeing not to pursue it are two different things. It doesn't mean that if both the House and Senate send a bill to the President's desk, that he wouldn't sign it. But that's not a likely scenario, which is kinda the point. It's like a pro-life candidate not pushing that kind of legislation because the current political climate makes it unlikely to get anywhere.

Agreed, except that wasn't really what I took from his quote. It sounded like he really doesn't think it should be legalized.

Paul said he believes in freedom and wants a “virtuous society” where people practice “self-restraint.” Yet he believes in laws and limits as well. Instead of advocating for legalized drugs, for example, he pushes for reduced penalties for many drug offenses.

“I’m not advocating everyone go out and run around with no clothes on and smoke pot,” [Rand] said. “I’m not a libertarian. I’m a libertarian Republican. I’m a constitutional conservative.”

“He made it very clear that he does not support legalization of drugs like marijuana and that he supports traditional marriage,” [said Brad Sherman of the Solid Rock Christian Church in Coralville, Iowa].

I really can't tell what he's about from these quotes. They aren't really direct quotes, and I'd like to hear him speak more on the subject.

 

[indiucky]

Goldwater warned the gop about those people

"Those people"....That's funny...Those people..You know "Jesus freaks", "Church Goers"...Do you refer to Amish as "those people"? Muslims as "those people"? Gays as "Those people"? Or are Evangeilcals the only group to get that title?

Hate is not a family value (or so the bumper sticker says.)

 

[steveh_131]

"Those people"....That's funny...Those people..You know "Jesus freaks", "Church Goers"...Do you refer to Amish as "those people"? Muslims as "those people"? Gays as "Those people"? Or are Evangeilcals the only group to get that title?

Hate is not a family value (or so the bumper sticker says.)

I think he meant 'those people' who want to legislate my personal life.

 

[armedindy]

yea, somebody tell me again which possible candidate is going to end the drug war?

 

[jamil]

Agreed, except that wasn't really what I took from his quote. It sounded like he really doesn't think it should be legalized.



I really can't tell what he's about from these quotes. They aren't really direct quotes, and I'd like to hear him speak more on the subject.

This is a partial transcript from fox news sunday.

The main thing I've said is not to legalize them, but not to incarcerate people for extended period of times. So I'm working with Sen. Leahy and we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 37, 50, 45 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. I think even marijuana is a bad thing to do. I think it takes away your incentive to work and show up and do the things you should be doing. I don't think it's a good idea. I don't want to promote that, but I also don't want to put people in jail who make a mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on in their 20s they grow up and get married and quit doing things like this. I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives.
Look, the last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use [edit: if only]. And I really think look what would have happened: It would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky, they don't have good attorneys and they go to jail for these things and I think it's a big mistake.

I don't know if he's philosophically opposed to legalizing MJ or if it's the platform he thinks he can best obtain.

I can say this though, I'm more certain that a bill legalizing drugs will not make it to the president's desk than I am that he would veto it if one ever made it.

There are too many other more critical issues that need addressed before this one becomes the hill to die on.

 

[jamil]

No... I don't think that. All I can ask is that he TRY and DO HIS BEST. That's all.



YOUR guys brought us those things. Remind me again why I should vote for more of that?



Enjoy your Patriot Act, your NDAA, your asset forfeiture, your warrantless wire taps, your secret courts, your President having the power to order people killed without any review ... you're bringing it on yourself; YOU'RE voting FOR it. At least I vote against that stuff.



Your opinion that RAND is a liberty-minded person is flawed. He's no more liberty-minded than the rest of them. To wit: the war on drugs. He's all in favor of continuing it, including all the asset forfeitures that go along with it, all the police state tactics, all of it.

You say we can't get everything - but every step of the way not only are not not getting ANYTHING, we're LOSING. And you're voting for it. Losing some vs. losing more is no choice at all for me. But I guess that's what you consider "progress"?

I think we're just not going to agree about what each other thinks.

 

[dross]

Gosh golly gee, Wally. Politics sure is confusing. It seems like if you stay pure you can't get elected, but if you compromise you lose your base. I sure wish the world was full of butterflies rainbows and unicorns.

They say that if you built a tennis court on an island where no one had ever heard of the sport, they'd come up with a game that was pretty much like the one we know in the main particulars. Politics is and always will be what it is. The practitioners will either play the game or disappear.

But darn it Wally, how come the world isn't some good way that I imagine and not some messed up way like it is?

Sorry, Beav.

 

[Cerberus]

Newsflash!!!!!! Rand Paul has never said, at least over the past 3 years, that he is for ending the drug war.

I learned long ago not to put too much stock in Reason.

 

[mrjarrell]

Newsflash!!!!!! Rand Paul has never said, at least over the past 3 years, that he is for ending the drug war.

I learned long ago not to put too much stock in Reason.

Then you learned poorly. The originating article, linked to in the Reason piece, was quite clear.

 

[jamil]

Newsflash!!!!!! Rand Paul has never said, at least over the past 3 years, that he is for ending the drug war.

I learned long ago not to put too much stock in Reason.

Then you learned poorly. The originating article, linked to in the Reason piece, was quite clear.

Trying to figure out what you're getting at.

Are you saying in the past 3 years that Paul was for ending the drug war and now he's not? Or is your comment purely about the trustworthiness of Reason?

 

[mrjarrell]

Are you saying in the past 3 years that Paul was for ending the drug war and now he's not? Or is your comment purely about the trustworthiness of Reason?

To the best of my knowledge Paul has never made his stance on the issue clear, till now. My comment, which was rather clear, was only about Reason's trustworthiness.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Put on your cool black leather jacket and read another perspective from an editor at Reason. Oh noes, Reason on Reason disagreement.

Rand Paul Plays The Maverick at CPAC and the Evangelical in Cedar Rapids - The Daily Beast

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I ran across this yesterday. Rand in his own words (mostly). He doesn't really seem to be a war on drugs war-monger to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXaRgww0Pzs

 

[jamil]

I ran across this yesterday. Rand in his own words (mostly). He doesn't really seem to be a war on drugs war-monger to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXaRgww0Pzs

Well, he's not rabidly against it so he must be rabidly for it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, he's not rabidly against it so he must be rabidly for it.

So, I see you are familiar with the INGO Purity Laws.