Rand Paul Just Got My Vote

[ZigZagZeke]

"The interesting thing is that there's probably no greater advocate for the Second Amendment in Congress than myself," Paul said today. "To not be invited [to the NRA convention], probably, will serve more to cast aspersions on their group than it would on me. Because my record's pretty clear. It probably looks a little bit petty for them not to invite a major candidate because I raised money for other Second Amendment groups."

http://www.redstate.com/diary/freed...d-paul-strong-second-amendment-according-nra/

NAGR President Dudley Brown said Wednesday that Mr. Paul is the only current or likely 2016 candidate affiliated with his organization. Mr. Paul remains a NAGR member, Mr. Brown said, but added that it is unclear if NAGR will continue to use Mr. Paul's name in fundraising appeals now that he has officially launched a presidential campaign.

The Kentucky senator, Mr. Brown said, is an excellent fundraiser for NAGR.

"It was no secret that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)93% is more pro-gun than the NRA," Mr. Brown said.

Mr. Brown slammed the NRA as a tool of the Washington insiders Mr. Paul has focused his campaign on opposing.

"I've been a gun lobbyist for 22 years and there's never been a point at which we did not have tension," he said. "We're younger, we're hungrier and we care less about the cocktail parties in Washington, D.C."

Whose fault is it that GOA and the NAGR are more principled than the NRA?

Read More

 

[boogerhook]

Paul is an interesting, and probably the only Constitution faithful amongst them. I wish he and Romney teamed up, just to catch enough fish/votes.

 

[Just Jim]

Have to wait and see if he is smart enough to be pres but looks hopeful as a candidate.

 

[10010110]

Smart enough, compared to who and in what category: intellect or being unprincipled?

 

[boogerhook]

Have to wait and see if he is smart enough to be pres but looks hopeful as a candidate.

he has put his foot into his mouth before, so that's something to be watched

 

[Just Jim]

Smart enough, compared to who and in what category: intellect or being unprincipled?

He is smarter than any democrat but I want to see who is the smartest and best that follows conservative principles. Time in the spotlight will show who is best, but no telling who will get elected.

 

[AMProducts]

Sorry, had to do a double take on that article real quick... NAGR? seriously those kooks are still running around? I had almost completely forgotten the name. http://www.5280.com/magazine/2013/08/Dudley-browns-war

GOA, 2AF, JPFO, yea, not going anywhere near NAGR.

I'm still unconvinced about Paul for president. He's leading the pack, but his competition is Cruz and Clinton. Makes it a pretty easy choice.

 

[oknow]

Does it really matter? unless it is very very close the election is over by the time we get to vote

 

[John Gault]

I like him because he consistently uses the "Constitution" as his resource rather than how the issue "makes him feel". I voted for his dad too for the same reason. In our current upside down world where that dirty old paper drafted by racist white guys with wigs gets kicked around like used TP by the current administration and written off as old thinking..... it's kinda refreshing.

 

[BillM]

Sorry, had to do a double take on that article real quick... NAGR? seriously those kooks are still running around?
GOA, 2AF, JPFO, yea, not going anywhere near NAGR.

+1^^^^^. Dudley Brown is an "interesting" person. Whatever you do--do NOT express any interest
in NAGR unless you want to increase your email traffic by 1000%. I'm sure they are fighting the good
fight--but what I see most is sniping at the NRA and soliciting funds.

 

[The Heretic]

Paul has been moving towards center and conservatism away from his supposedly libertarian roots, which in turn has alienated his libertarian supporters.

In short, like any other politician, he will do and say whatever it takes for him to acquire more power. Not a good indicator IMO.

I generally only vote for the people I actually want to be in office, not the lesser of two evils, but I might vote for him as the lesser of two evils, if it looks like he has a chance. But I doubt he will make it past the primaries - the old school party apparatus won't let him get that far. Even as a politician who will make compromising noises, he makes them too nervous.

 

[timac]

Paul/Cruz or Cruz/Paul. But sadly it's already been decided.

 

[oknow]

Paul/Cruz or Cruz/Paul. But sadly it's already been decided.
View attachment 228602

Let's hope and pray not

 

[Stomper]

Paul has been moving towards center and conservatism away from his supposedly libertarian roots, which in turn has alienated his libertarian supporters.

In short, like any other politician, he will do and say whatever it takes for him to acquire more power. Not a good indicator IMO.

I generally only vote for the people I actually want to be in office, not the lesser of two evils, but I might vote for him as the lesser of two evils, if it looks like he has a chance. But I doubt he will make it past the primaries - the old school party apparatus won't let him get that far. Even as a politician who will make compromising noises, he makes them too nervous.

Wait, what? True conservatism IS libertarian.

 

[The Heretic]

Wait, what? True conservatism IS libertarian.

Uh yeah.

When I see a "true conservative" say this:



I will maybe start to be convinced of that statement. Until then, I will know it is just as you said it; tongue in cheek.

 

[Just Jim]

Uh yeah.

When I see a "true conservative" say this:

View attachment 228678

I will maybe start to be convinced of that statement. Until then, I will know it is just as you said it; tongue in cheek.

I thought that was already law...

 

[AMProducts]

Wait, what? True conservatism IS libertarian.

The problem is the libertarian message when combined with social conservatism stops being libertarianism.

 

[The Heretic]

I thought that was already law...

In some places the current law may approach that.

But there are a LOT of conservatives that this state of affairs is really upsetting, and many of which are actively trying to revert it.

 

[Just Jim]

In some places the current law may approach that.

But there are a LOT of conservatives that this state of affairs is really upsetting, and many of which are actively trying to revert it.

True conservatives would want government out of everyone business. Moral conservatives might have a problem with the social issues.

 

[The Heretic]

"True conservatives" let their handlers tell them what to think and say, especially when it comes to "moral" issues like gay marriage, drugs, etc...

Even Libertarians have their "handlers" who tell them to stick to the flawed theory of "rational actors" in the economy, thereby trying to let corrupt corporations do as they please saying that eventually the "market" will work it out.

If there is one thing that humans are not, it is "rational actors". Humans can't even think rationally 1% of the time much less act rationally. Humans are easily manipulated through their emotions. Appeal to their greed, their desires (whether fear, anger or lust) and you can control them - in general at least.

The best we can do is to protect each individual's right to do as they please with their life as long as they do not infringe on other people's rights to in turn live their lives as they see fit.

But almost no one wants that. ALmost everyone, republicans and democrats, want to stick their noses into everyone else's business.

Republicans want to be everybody's Christian daddy and spank you when you say a naughty word, when you smoke or drink, when you look at porn, when you have the "wrong" sexual tendencies - meanwhile doing many of those things themselves in secret.

Democrats want to be everybody's mommy, kissing your boo boo when you fall down, giving you somebody else's money when you have bad luck or make bad decisions, make excuses for you trying to absolve you of any fault, not letting you take any responsibility, and keep you away from dangerous things (guns) or activities.

Libertarians want you to do as you please, but many naively think they can accomplish that by letting corporations do as they please - raping the earth by polluting/etc., ripping off people, thinking that some kind of evolution is at play in the "market" when in truth the players in those corps just change the names of the corps and get bailed out by the government and hide their money somewhere else, because either they control the government themselves, or they don't get caught because the government isn't looking at all.

Then you get people like Rand Paul who try to play to both libertarians and conservatives at the same time, saying to each group what he thinks they want to hear. How is that any different from any other politician?