Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by ZigZagZeke, Apr 10, 2015.
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.
Have to wait and see if he is smart enough to be pres but looks hopeful as a candidate.
Smart enough, compared to who and in what category: intellect or being unprincipled?
he has put his foot into his mouth before, so that's something to be watched
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.
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.
Does it really matter? unless it is very very close the election is over by the time we get to vote
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.
+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.
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.
Paul/Cruz or Cruz/Paul. But sadly it's already been decided.
Let's hope and pray not
Wait, what? True conservatism IS libertarian.
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.
I thought that was already law...
The problem is the libertarian message when combined with social conservatism stops being libertarianism.
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.
"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?