Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on May 05, 2009, 11:21:25 AM
-
The "R Paul" in question is Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son.
Gee, I wonder where he came up with that name?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6404481.html
FRANKFORT, Ky. — Republican Rand Paul, son of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, said Friday he is poised to enter the race for U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning's seat if the 77-year-old sports icon decides to retire.
"I've been traveling the state and giving speeches as if there is going to be a race," he told The Associated Press. "Every bone in my body says there is going to be a race."
But the Bowling Green, Ky., physician said he won't rush into the campaign just because another potential GOP challenger has stepped forward. His father, who is a physician in Lake Jackson, Texas, represents a Texas Gulf Coast U.S. House district that extends from Galveston to Victoria.
Bunning is former pitcher and Baseball Hall of Famer has won election to the Senate twice from Kentucky, both times by razor-thin margins. Some Republican leaders, fearing Bunning lacks the political muscle to survive a third challenge, are sending not-so-subtle messages that they want him to retire. He raised only $262,980 from January through March for a race that he said would likely cost some $7 million to win.
Paul, a fan of Bunning's conservative fiscal philosophy, said it is those mixed signals that have him standing ready to enter the race.
Paul, who shares many of his father's conservative political views, was an integral part of last year's presidential campaign. He said his father's political organization largely remains intact and could be reactivated to raise money for his Senate race.
His father finished third in Kentucky's Republican presidential primary behind John McCain and Mike Huckabee but well ahead of Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Alan Keyes.
-
As long as it's not Ru Paul... =D
-
Hopefully he is a little more charismatic than pops. Unfortunately ideas only get you so far.
-
El T, can you not see the name "Paul" without seeming to be a hopeless twit? Your constant, juvenile treatment of it gets tiresome. Can you please lay off for a few years?
jb :mad:
-
El T, can you not see the name "Paul" without seeming to be a hopeless twit? Your constant, juvenile treatment of it gets tiresome. Can you please lay off for a few years?
jb :mad:
A sampling of past posts where RP is mentioned would indicate a "no" answer to your question.
-
They already got natural wookie suits in Kentucky.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maniacworld.com%2FRednecks-of-the-South.jpg&hash=26a240e75b7096616555a6a8ad7a50af084aa9bb)
-
The Billies are about to be overrun with unemployed nerds. Legal question: can one carry a wooden sword while wearing Spock ears in Kentucky?
I'd rather wear a wookie suit than a redcoat.
-
I do not smoke pot, wear Wookie suits, live in my mom's basement, collect unemployment checks or eat Cheetoes, therefore I am not a Ron Paul voter.
Hah your ideas are useless, I voted Ron Paul and I am only 3 of the 5, take THAT! =D
#1 check, on occasion. (while on vacation mmmm red wine and green herb)
#3 not basement per se, adjoining condo though.
#5 who doesn't enjoy cheetoes on occasion.
Hmm I just need to get me some unemployment and a wookie suit.
In all seriousness though, do you have ACTUAL reasons for not liking RP or do you just enjoy poking fun at his supporters? I mean come one, what's the other option, Palin?!?
-
I'd rather wear a wookie suit than a redcoat.
Ouch.
-
El T, can you not see the name "Paul" without seeming to be a hopeless twit? Your constant, juvenile treatment of it gets tiresome. Can you please lay off for a few years?
jb :mad:
What he said.
-
Seriously lay off the wookie crap.
-
I like him, but someone needs to get a hair cut and find
some better ties...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnDye3sqB54
-
Cut it out or leave.
Chris
-
I like him, but someone needs to get a hair cut and find
some better ties...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnDye3sqB54
Nah, he just hasn't graduated to the standard politician's $500 haircuts yet.
Tenatively reopened.
-
Even with a mohawk he'd still be better than most politicians.
-
Does anyone know his actual positions? I know it says he shares many of his dad's views, but I'd be interested to hear his thoughts.
-
Even with a mohawk he'd still be better than most politicians.
Would he then get to wear war paint?
I'd like to know his views also, but mainly I'd like to know if he can pick his battles better and confine his campaign to a few winning issues.
-
http://www.rand2010.com/
-
I like him, but someone needs to get a hair cut and find
some better ties...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnDye3sqB54
Sure it's not a hairpiece?
-
http://www.rand2010.com/
Dang you for providing useful data that, in a reasonable world, would put the issue to rest!
-
http://www.rand2010.com/
I love it... all the recent news on the site is submitted by Dagny Taggart.
-
uh oh i like how paul looks reminds me of my dad in many ways and thats a good thing
-
Hopefully when he gets an official site it has a spell-checker.
-
I'd rather wear a wookie suit than a redcoat.
Well spoken.
-
RAND Paul. Reminds me of Howard Phillips kids. Justice, Jubilee, Liberty, etc.
I happen to know a young lady named Justice. Poor girl. Justice may be a chick in the mythology, but that is a very masculine name.
-
Like it or not, the Paul family may be the only hope for the Republican party. They may even be the only hope for this country.
As far as you Paul/Paul supporter bashers, those guys make me laugh. The bad stereotypes are pretty funny. There are plenty of wack jobs in every political group, even the Democrats and Republicans. The press who hated Paul did a good job of ignoring him when they weren't making fun of his ideas or supporters. Could he have done any worse that McCain or Obama? I think not!
I think maybe as time goes on, people will see that voting for someone different may be the answer.
-
Voting for something "different" makes about as much sense as voting for "change."
-
Voting for something "different" makes about as much sense as voting for "change."
Nice line, but Obama wasn't "change".
-
Sure he was. Obama was change alright, it was just change for the worse.
"Change" is just like "different". Just because something is different doesn't mean it's better. "Different" could easily turn out to be much worse that what we have now.
-
No, he's pretty much the same politician that we've had for quite a while. The fact that you (along with the most of America) think he's significantly different is sad and speaks to your lack of imagination on what politicians COULD be.
-
No, he's pretty much the same politician that we've had for quite a while. The fact that you (along with the most of America) think he's significantly different is sad and speaks to your lack of imagination on what politicians COULD be.
Back up that assertion. How are Obama and the previous status quo the same?
-
Back up that assertion. How are Obama and the previous status quo the same?
Guantanamo Bay used to house terrorists indefinitely
Warrant-less surveillance/wiretapping promoted, practiced, & defended
Both now seek to use military tribunals to deal with captured terrorists
I could go on, but I don;t want to crush the fragile psyches of the hopey dopey changey folks who voted BHO.
=========
OTOH, there are some changes, but not as many as you'd think. Every policy, "right" or "left", that expands the power of the state is endorsed by BHO, it seems.
-
I guess I should have said "better" instead of "different". Current politicans are not really changing anything except for making things worse.
The current crop of Democrats and Republicans are more similar than different. Both are responsible for the mess we're in. Someone with libertarian leanings may be what's needed. If we never elect these people, we will never know if they would have helped.
-
Guantanamo Bay used to house terrorists indefinitely
Warrant-less surveillance/wiretapping promoted, practiced, & defended
Both now seek to use military tribunals to deal with captured terrorists
I could go on, but I don;t want to crush the fragile psyches of the hopey dopey changey folks who voted BHO.
=========
OTOH, there are some changes, but not as many as you'd think. Every policy, "right" or "left", that expands the power of the state is endorsed by BHO, it seems.
I have no problem with keeping terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, that is, since we don't seem to be allowed to kill them.
I have no problem with warrentless wire-taps of foreign nationals. Foreigners have no protection from our government.
I'm all for military tribunals as the circus that is our "Justice" system is not able to deal with state secrets.
That's not what bothers me about our president. It's his taking ownership of banks that's worrying me and his threatening of private citizens.
That's less befitting the leader of the free world and more befitting a third world dictator... (and the dictator tends to CAUSE the country to become third world, not necessary a result from it being a third world country...)
-
Voting for something "different" makes about as much sense as voting for "change."
I think this is a strawman. The people who voted for Obama wanted socialist-lite "change". They knew wht they wanted. They may not have verbalized it as such, but that's what they wanted. The people who voted for Ron Paul knew precisely what kind of "different" he stood for, too.
-
I think this is a strawman. The people who voted for Obama wanted socialist-lite "change". They knew wht they wanted. They may not have verbalized it as such, but that's what they wanted. The people who voted for Ron Paul knew precisely what kind of "different" he stood for, too.
No, some of them didn't vote for socialist-lite "change". Some of them honestly (and foolishly) thought he represented a "new tone" who would "lower taxes" and "change the way Washington works".
Many of them are feeling very burned.
-
I think this is a strawman. The people who voted for Obama wanted socialist-lite "change". They knew wht they wanted. They may not have verbalized it as such, but that's what they wanted. The people who voted for Ron Paul knew precisely what kind of "different" he stood for, too.
I disagree. In the Obama campaign, "change" was accepted as an end in itself. Maybe some of the Obama voters took it as an implied "change from Bush", but that still leaves out half of the equation. Unless you know what you're changing from, and what you're changing to, then "change" has no meaning whatsoever.
"Different" is no different. Unless you specify important little details like "different from what" and "different in what way", then the concept of "different" is just as vague and vacuous as "change".
I think it's telling that so many people on the left thought "change" automatically meant "change to something better". I think that belies a certain prejudice, a deep-down presumption that America is something awful, and that anything different has to be better by default. Really, how bad to you have to believe our country is to think that anything else at all would be an improvement?
I take a different attitude. I think America is pretty darned good on balance. When people start throwing around things like "change" and "different" as if they were virtues, I'm inclined to balk. I like my country the way it is, and I'm not all that eager to see it "changed" into something "different".
-
Here's a thing:
A revolution already occurred. Not just in America (I've always pointed out America's virtues are hers alone, while her problems are global in nature) but throughout the Western world, since about the 1930's we no longer have a capitalist system, but a system that economists refer to as the 'third-way economy', something in between capitalism and utter socialism – with graduated income taxes used both as a revenue method and a method to control behavior (through various devices), state regulation over the production and sales of every possible product, bans or controls on firearms, government control of almost all education, and so forth. I can go on and on
What conservatives refuse to realize is that the society they want – one based on the values of capitalism, personal responsibility, and traditional family values (I don't share each and every one of these beliefs, I'm just pointing them out) is not the one any of us has. The US supreme court recognizes abortion as a basic right, though it refuses (under the same right to privacy) to recognize, say, a right to smoke. The 10th Amendment is dead or almost-dead. Schools are controlled by leftists.
The libertarian set of goals is slightly different than the set of goals put out by conservatives (libertarians are normally more keen on stuff like drug legalization and far, far less keen on 'family values), but the most important and strategic difference between libertarians and conservatives is that conservatives refuse to recognize the fact that the change they require is a revolutionary change. They can't get this change by voting for mainstreamish, well-shaven, tie-wearing dudes. You want to actually live to see these things happen, you have to fight for them like MLK fought for civil rgihts.
But conservatism's inherent mistrust of revolutions of any kind (even nonviolent, peaceful, and lawful ones) is getting in the way of the reforms conservatives desire. That's why RINOs keep being in charge of the party, and will continue remaining in charge of the party. That's why Rand Paul will probably lose the primaries, too.
-
What you're saying is that the US is a problem, and that you know how to fix it.
That, right there, is the simplest explanation I can give for why I distrust your particular movement.
-
No, the US is not a problem. America is the greatest civilization to ever exist in the history of the world. The Romans, Greeks, Ancient Jews and so forth don't even come close.
But yes, countries have problems. People know how to fix them. These people are not necessarily me (though of course I am always right. Saying that a systemic problem exists in your country does not equal a lack of patriotism.
Systemic problems are not resolved with cosmetic change. Pretending that you can do this will not fix your problem. Treating head wounds with aspirin is not an FDA-approved procedure.
-
Treating head wounds with aspirin is not an FDA-approved procedure.
Unfortunately, the current administration would prefer to use tourniquets for head wounds.
-
No, the US is not a problem. America is the greatest civilization to ever exist in the history of the world. The Romans, Greeks, Ancient Jews and so forth don't even come close.
But yes, countries have problems. People know how to fix them. These people are not necessarily me (though of course I am always right. Saying that a systemic problem exists in your country does not equal a lack of patriotism.
Systemic problems are not resolved with cosmetic change. Pretending that you can do this will not fix your problem. Treating head wounds with aspirin is not an FDA-approved procedure.
As you say, America is probably the greatest society ever conceived. That's why I cringe whenever someone comes along claiming to be able to "improve" upon it. The likelihood is that their changes will screw us up in ways that neither of us can fathom right now.
To use your medical analogy, you don't let the surgeons cut you open when all you have is a sniffle and a cough.
-
As you say, America is probably the greatest society ever conceived. That's why I cringe whenever someone comes along claiming to be able to "improve" upon it. The likelihood is that their changes will screw us up in ways that neither of us can fathom right now.
To use your medical analogy, you don't let the surgeons cut you open when all you have is a sniffle and a cough.
Getting rid of graduated income tax, repealing the NFA, reducing the number of unregulated alphabet soup agencies etc would be bad how? Not saying I agree with Micro, but your "Everything is just peachy, no need to change here! Besides, you'd just make it worse." attitude is equally wrong.
-
First of all, I said things were pretty good on balance, not that everything was perfect.
Second, we're not talking about minor political wranglings like repealing a few gun laws or cutting taxes. We're talking about "revolutionary change", the type of change that micro sez can't be achieved through the normal political process.
It's the "we need a revolution" talk or the "we can remake society" talk that worries me. The more radically you remake the United States, the more likely you are to break something. Maybe I've just studied too much history, but I highly doubt that any sort of "revolution" is going to turn out better for us in the end.
Wanna repeal NFA and fix the income tax? You won't achieve it through a revolution. It won't be accomplished by guys wearing Wookie suits or politicians who are pathologically impolitic. It'll be achieved by a man like Reagan, someone who wears a suit and shaves, and who understands that working within the system makes more sense than trying to fight the system.
-
Unfortunately, the current administration would prefer to use tourniquets for head wounds.
Is that what happened to Joe Biden? Poor guy.
-
To be fair, most of the fixes that you fear are not new ideas, they are merely repealing bad ideas.
The current administration's fix for a head wound is to convince you that you won't bleed to death if you just keep drinking the blood.
-
the type of change that micro sez can't be achieved through the normal political process.
Let's be clear on what I said. I do not mean that radical political change cannot be achieved through the normal political process. It can, however the process is very iffy and can take generations upon generations. I don't know about you, but (if I were a US citizen), I'd see very little point in struggling for the NFA to be repealed in 90 years so one can amble out to the range in a wheelchair and try very hard not to drool onto my shirt as I try to hold the M1921 stead in my arthritic hands.
Additionally, there is a moral issue at stake. If, through your efforts, the NFA is repealed in 90 years, in the interim, people continue to go to prison and have their lives ruined by the act. The very basic main point of libertarianism is that putting a man in prison for owning a shotgun with a 15" barrel is morally repugnant. It is the moral duty of every libertarian, wherever he lives, to work to get such laws (whatever equivalent of them there is) repealed as rapidly as possible, so that people will no longer be imprisoned under them, and so that people who have already been imprisoned can get their lives back.
Maybe I've just studied too much history, but I highly doubt that any sort of "revolution" is going to turn out better for us in the end.
The last one worked out, didn't it? As a matter of fact, history records plenty of successful revolutions.
Wanna repeal NFA and fix the income tax?
See, you don't understand the purpose of the process. The purpose is not to cut taxes so we're paying less money to the government. Paying less money to the government is nice, but it's not the point. The purpose is to make the income tax flat or replace it by a sales tax so that the government can no longer use the differing tax rates, tax loopholes, and tax filing to monitor your behavior and direct it by subsidizing forms of behavior it likes better.
It'll be achieved by a man like Reagan, someone who wears a suit and shaves, and who understands that working within the system makes more sense than trying to fight the system.
How is it that the more people keep talking about Reagan, the more the actual candidates end up looking like McCain?
The problem with 'working within the system' is that the system is rigged. Not in the sense that people are faking the elections or breaking the law, of course, but in the sense that the Progressives have created a variety of 'constituencies' who believe they have a vested interest in prolonging the status quo (unions, teachers, the media, the academia), and the Conservatives are vastly more interested in keeping their ties on than working to create new constituencies.
More importantly, the process of politics – like warfare – is a combined-arms process. Even if you choose to remain a moderate, you still need radicals to do certain things. Moderates are less likely to protest or donate money politically than radicals. There's a reason that Heller involved a Free State Project member and a libertarian attorney – because moderates 'have jobs'. There's also a reason Goldwater's fundraising mailing lists included so many Birchers, YAF members and so forth – and why the Reagan campaign later took over the Goldwater campaign's mailing lists and used them to build its organization.
-
Even if you choose to remain a moderate, you still need radicals to do certain things. Moderates are less likely to protest or donate money politically than radicals. There's a reason that Heller involved a Free State Project member and a libertarian attorney – because moderates 'have jobs'.
clap clap
-
More importantly, the process of politics – like warfare – is a combined-arms process. Even if you choose to remain a moderate, you still need radicals to do certain things. Moderates are less likely to protest or donate money politically than radicals. There's a reason that Heller involved a Free State Project member and a libertarian attorney – because moderates 'have jobs'. There's also a reason Goldwater's fundraising mailing lists included so many Birchers, YAF members and so forth – and why the Reagan campaign later took over the Goldwater campaign's mailing lists and used them to build its organization.
Wow, Hillsdale College and this forum have to be the only two SANE places in the world where I could conceivable be called a "moderate".
-
I was mostly addressing HTG. I apologize if I've offended you. =D
-
More importantly, the process of politics – like warfare – is a combined-arms process. Even if you choose to remain a moderate, you still need radicals to do certain things. Moderates are less likely to protest or donate money politically than radicals. There's a reason that Heller involved a Free State Project member and a libertarian attorney – because moderates 'have jobs'. There's also a reason Goldwater's fundraising mailing lists included so many Birchers, YAF members and so forth – and why the Reagan campaign later took over the Goldwater campaign's mailing lists and used them to build its organization.
There's a nugget of wisdom in there. A Free Stater succeeded at increasing liberty (in his lifetime, even), but he didn't do it by wearing a Wookie suit in New Hampshire. Birchers and YAFers were involved in the biggest greatest positive political change in recent memory, but it wasn't radicalism that carried the day.
-
A Free Stater succeeded at increasing liberty (in his lifetime, even), but he didn't do it by wearing a Wookie suit in New Hampshire
Arguably we can use a variety of tools. Context is our friend here. If you're staging a political protest then wearing a Wookie suit or burning a social security card is the thing to do.
Birchers and YAFers were involved in the biggest greatest positive political change in recent memory, but it wasn't radicalism that carried the day.
I would disagree here. Radicalism isn't inherently opposed to an incrementalism.
-
Looking at this guys website, I like his stance better than Ron's. He takes a much more aggressive stance against attacks based from foreign lands and seems to support action in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are things I supported, and still support.
He also mentions requiring declarations of war. Although I understand where he is coming from, I feel the legislative action taken by Congress in both conflicts created the official and public tacit support that follows the spirit of the Constitution, as well as the letter. But that is a pretty minor nit picky point.
I agree with Makattak, kill the terrorists, put them in military prisons, and deal with them by tribunal. Foreigners have no constitutional rights except those created by mutual treaty (see Geneva Convention). War is not a game, or a sport with fair play. Especially against an enemy against which we have no agreement about the conduct of war.
-
Arguably we can use a variety of tools. Context is our friend here. If you're staging a political protest then wearing a Wookie suit or burning a social security card is the thing to do.
I would disagree here. Radicalism isn't inherently opposed to an incrementalism.
I'm jis sayin' that they all achieved their successes by working within the system, not by railing against it.
-
See, but this is my point.
Repealing the graduated income tax (for example) will cause all sort of long-term social change. It's the textbook definition of a radical change.
There's an inherent contradiction between pursuing radical social change and simultaneously believing in a philosophy that states that radical social change is bad. It's going to come back and bite you, one way or another.
-
strange names
One summer night, going to the pier I ran into two young girls,
The blonde one was called Freedom, The dark one, Enterprise
-
strange names
One summer night, going to the pier I ran into two young girls,
The blonde one was called Freedom, The dark one, Enterprise
I think it means he's against drug prohibition? =D
-
See, but this is my point.
Repealing the graduated income tax (for example) will cause all sort of long-term social change. It's the textbook definition of a radical change.
There's an inherent contradiction between pursuing radical social change and simultaneously believing in a philosophy that states that radical social change is bad. It's going to come back and bite you, one way or another.
Then it seems that we have different understandings of the word "radical".
-
By the way, Rand Paul has a website right here: http://www.randpaul2010.com/
Today is his Money Bomb event, it seems. He's raised $300,000 or so since morning.