Rand Paul Just Got My Vote

[solv3nt]

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

I changed my political affiliation to Democratic, just so I could vote against the hilldog in the primaries.

 

[Just Jim]

"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?

You seem to typecast us all but I doubt we all fit into your story. We are all a cast of characters but each with our own beginning and end as part of the life we follow. I disagree with your points on people wanting to change others, people are too selfish to really care what happens. All that is said and done under the political banners is narcissistic masturbation to get the most out of life for themselves.

The reality of politics is that it's the path you choose to get the most out of the world for yourself 99 times out of 100. The one percent that isn't greedy is considered dumb and dangerous. The political path is normally chosen by your religion or lack there of which makes politics part of morality. Politics rules the world and has killed millions of citizens, to not be part of the fight for a better world opens the door to that evil that kills us or enslaves us.

 

[The Heretic]

You seem to typecast us all but I doubt we all fit into your story. We are all a cast of characters but each with our own beginning and end as part of the life we follow. I disagree with your points on people wanting to change others, people are too selfish to really care what happens. All that is said and done under the political banners is narcissistic masturbation to get the most out of life for themselves.

The reality of politics is that it's the path you choose to get the most out of the world for yourself 99 times out of 100. The one percent that isn't greedy is considered dumb and dangerous. The political path is normally chosen by your religion or lack there of which makes politics part of morality. Politics rules the world and has killed millions of citizens, to not be part of the fight for a better world opens the door to that evil that kills us or enslaves us.

I don't necessarily disagree - do however personally try to aim for a political philosophy that allows others the maximum liberty possible without infringing on the rights of others.

While on the one hand I believe this makes the world a better place overall, it doesn't necessarily result in any direct benefit for myself, much less the maximum benefit.

In this I try to be consistent; e.g., it would be to my benefit if I could force others to pay, via their taxes, for research into certain diseases that myself or my family suffer from - but I believe that it isn't their responsibility, and that such taxation would, and does, amount to theft by force. "Legal" theft in that somebody somewhere convinced some government entity to enact some law or rule or regulation, but still theft nonetheless, and therefore morally wrong, even if it benefits me or mine.

Does that make me dumb and dangerous? Some would say so. I can't be responsible for what others think of me or my philosophy, and for the most part I really don't care much of the time what they think.

And yes, my descriptions are stereotypes, or typecasting, or generalizing to one degree or another.

Yes, not everybody fits neatly into those boxes, there are a few exceptions, but it is true enough to be a starting point and it is rare that I have met anybody where some part of my descriptions don't ring true - very few people think about such things logically. It is human nature to be emotional.

Read enough Hayek and Friedman and you come across where they allow that government should provide a "social safety net" without any supporting argument much less evidence to support that assertion - they simply state it as a matter of accepted fact when it is anything but.

Logic has to be consistent. It has to take into account reality - the world as it is, not the world as we would like it to be. I have yet to read any expositions by author/pundit/leader of any political faction where their "logic" is consistent and without serious flaw.

I think of myself as libertarian as that is the closest label most people are familiar with that somewhat describes my political philosophy. But any generalized philosophy that fails to take into account basic human nature, doesn't maintain consistency in its logic, and/or doesn't concur with basic reality, is fundamentally flawed.

 

[etrain16]

I changed my political affiliation to Democratic, just so I could vote against the hilldog in the primaries.

Funny, I thought about doing the same thing. But as in all previous elections, by the time they bother getting around to Oregon, that decision will have already been made. Heck, it will be done within the first 10-20 primaries, max. Unless they come up with some super-candidate to go up against Hillary, she will be their nominee. I don't think Biden has a chance. And, anyone who tries to run against her will probably be marked as a sexist for trying to block a woman from becoming president. They'll already be doing that when they attack the 'R' candidates - considering the nasty attacks she made against Obama, we can certainly expect more of the same this time around.

 

[etrain16]

It's obvious that Democrat politicians are the ones leading the charge for gun control. But there are plenty of Republican politicians that are doing little to stop them, which, in my mind, makes them complicit in those same actions. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 2nd amendment should not be a right/left issue. If politicians attack the 2nd by passing more laws to restrict it, they are the enemy. D, R, L, whatever, if they vote to take our rights, any rights, they need to go.

 

[Just Jim]

I changed my political affiliation to Democratic, just so I could vote against the hilldog in the primaries.

No offense now, last time she ran people didn't want her either and look what we ended up with. None of them are going to be any good for us, democrats are not what the country needs right now.

 

[Just Jim]

It's obvious that Democrat politicians are the ones leading the charge for gun control. But there are plenty of Republican politicians that are doing little to stop them, which, in my mind, makes them complicit in those same actions. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the 2nd amendment should not be a right/left issue. If politicians attack the 2nd by passing more laws to restrict it, they are the enemy. D, R, L, whatever, if they vote to take our rights, any rights, they need to go.

I have no idea what the repub strategy is but it seems they are letting the dems do all they want to hurt us. Hopefully it will be pain we remember at the ballot box but I suspect that is what it's about, really showing how far the dems will go if they can get away with it. Pain is a good teacher and the more the dems screw us over the madder we will become. Nobody will ever forget what a rectum obola has become as pres and the more they "let" him run wild the more pain that will be remembered.

You see how the dems govern, is this what you want is the strategy I suspect of the repubs.

 

[solv3nt]

No offense now, last time she ran people didn't want her either and look what we ended up with. None of them are going to be any good for us, democrats are not what the country needs right now.

I look at it this way, I live in Portland, it really doesn't matter who wins the Republican primary, as none of them stand a chance of winning. For example, a Bruce Broussard ran against US Congressman Earl Blumenauer in 2006, he spent $500 campaigning, and he won 23% of the vote in Portland. Basically, he got every single republican vote. Also, if you're ever looking for good soul food in Portland, check out Norma's Kitchen on Jantzen Beach across from Safeway and support Bruce and his wife.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Okay, this is fine.
But,...
I don't think florists, bakers and churches etc should be forced a gunpoint (or gavel point) to participate in a gay wedding if they choose not to.
And when they're done growing their dope, and decide to smoke it, they still need to be subject to laws and work rules that deal with being impaired.
And that includes the use of their guns. (in public) Shooting while impaired on pot is no different than shooting after drinking.

 

[Stomper]

... and if they can't hold a job because nobody will hire (or insure) them because they can't pass a pi$$-test, WE don't wind up supporting them via welfare, food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid/care.

 

[Joe Link]

Guys I can see this thread already devolving, but this is important.

We're going to try to keep this open. Please do your part, remind yourself that this is public, and keep it civil.

 

[Just Jim]

Geez.

 

[oknow]

Guys I can see this thread already devolving, but this is important.

We're going to try to keep this open. Please do your part, remind yourself that this is public, and keep it civil.

Do we have to???????

Only kidding.

 

[Mikej]

Okay, I had to scroll up to see what the thread topic was (hint hint Joe).

I changed my political affiliation to Democratic, just so I could vote against the hilldog in the primaries.

Hmm, I've been talking of changing to Repub for some time so I could vote in the primaries and rag on the far, far right to make things better for everyone!

Rand Paul.....I was listening. When a candidate trots out God and religion in a second sentence that's it for me. I believe in freedom from religion as much as a persons right to their religion. Same thing with the guy up for election at one of the pro gun rallies at the capitol, pulled a bible from his jacket pocket, right from the get-go. Not interested.

 

[solv3nt]

Okay, I had to scroll up to see what the thread topic was (hint hint Joe).




Hmm, I've been talking of changing to Repub for some time so I could vote in the primaries and rag on the far, far right to make things better for everyone!

Rand Paul.....I was listening. When a candidate trots out God and religion in a second sentence that's it for me. I believe in freedom from religion as much as a persons right to their religion. Same thing with the guy up for election at one of the pro gun rallies at the capitol, pulled a bible from his jacket pocket, right from the get-go. Not interested.

I hope that you don't receive this as an attack as you are free to believe and think however you like. That said, this country was founded on the following principles:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

Your money says "In God we trust"

That said, if we take God out of our Country, then we are left with a bunch of documents written by man, enforced by man, and has the ability for man to make changes.

You are free to believe or not believe in whatever you like. You are free to your own opinion, and vote with your conscience. This is a great country, and we are granted these freedoms. I am for the segregation of church and state, but I warn you that if you take God out of the founding documents, you are left with man, and man can take away your rights.

 

[Joe Link]

Rand Paul.....I was listening. When a candidate trots out God and religion in a second sentence that's it for me. I believe in freedom from religion as much as a persons right to their religion. Same thing with the guy up for election at one of the pro gun rallies at the capitol, pulled a bible from his jacket pocket, right from the get-go. Not interested.

I tend to agree with you, though I'm not sure any of the R candidates will be able to win without the evangelical vote. I'd say it's likely we'll be hearing the same from all of them.

I hope that you don't receive this as an attack as you are free to believe and think however you like. That said, this country was founded on the following principles:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

Your money says "In God we trust"

That said, if we take God out of our Country, then we are left with a bunch of documents written by man, enforced by man, and has the ability for man to make changes.

You are free to believe or not believe in whatever you like. You are free to your own opinion, and vote with your conscience. This is a great country, and we are granted these freedoms. I am for the segregation of church and state, but I warn you that if you take God out of the founding documents, you are left with man, and man can take away your rights.

I'm sure they wrote plenty about exactly what they meant, but it makes me wonder if by God they weren't referring to a 'supreme being' in general, rather than a specific God. IIRC most of them were Masons?

 

[solv3nt]

I tend to agree with you, though I'm not sure any of the R candidates will be able to win without the evangelical vote. I'd say it's likely we'll be hearing the same from all of them.



I'm sure they wrote plenty about exactly what they meant, but it makes me wonder if by God they weren't referring to a 'supreme being' in general, rather than a specific God. IIRC most of them were Masons?

They could be referring to allah for I care, but the point is, who gives you your rights? Are your rights to freedom of speech given to you by man or by a higher being? Are your rights to possess firearms given to you by man or a higher being? Are your rights to freedom of religion given to you by man or a higher being?

A higher being won't take away your rights, so if you take away the higher being, you're left with man. If man gave you a right, man can take them away.

 

[Joe Link]

They could be referring to allah for I care, but the point is, who gives you your rights? Are your rights to freedom of speech given to you by man or by a higher being? Are your rights to possess firearms given to you by man or a higher being? Are your rights to freedom of religion given to you by man or a higher being?

A higher being won't take away your rights, so if you take away the higher being, you're left with man. If man gave you a right, man can take them away.

Sounds like we're on the same page there. Unfortunately, our rights on this earth are given and taken away by man. The 'inherent' right is simply a personal belief, which varies greatly (IE 'right' to a $15 minimum wage). If enough of us believe in the same inherent right, we setup systems to protect those, such as the Bill of Rights, but that's still a man-made protection.

This, to me, is why the 2nd Amendment is so important. I believe that without a means of physically defending ones rights, one really has no rights at all.

 

[Mikej]

One nation "UNDER GOD" was inserted at a much later date in the pledge of allegiance. I grew up in Utah, twelve miles from THE Mormon Temple. When people pull a bible out I tend to distrust them, for those types tend to decide how you should live your life, if given the chance.

 

[solv3nt]

One nation "UNDER GOD" was inserted at a much later date in the pledge of allegiance. I grew up in Utah, twelve miles from THE Mormon Temple. When people pull a bible out I tend to distrust them, for those types tend to decide how you should live your life, if given the chance.

Bad example, the Declaration of Independence still references a higher being. This still begs the question, where are your rights derived?