patrick.net

Those are good points bob, but I suspect the Republican Party might be tired of being losers and willing to sacrifice a few sacred cows to put a man in the White House. Also, public sentiment is very pro-reformer right now, and will only be more so in 2016 after Obama is finished fucking over the nation. Hillary will be left holding the enema kit and trying to say she had nothing to do with it. GOP would like to nominate another Mitt, but won't take the chance of losing again (which is certain if they pick another vulture capitalist) so they will grudgingly accept Paul. I'm hoping he's the reformer for America that the new pope is for Catholicism.

Let's avoid the mistakes of the clinton years and wait long enough till he can't get it up..
bob2356 says

FortWayne says

Would you vote a just out of college to be the General of the Armies?

Rand Paul graduated Baylor in 1983. This is 2014. The man is 51 years old. When does just out of college end for you?

CPAC voting for Rand Paul just shows how wingnuts double down on the crazy.

Perhaps he could dig up Ayn Rand's corpse for a showpiece, that'd put frosting on the cake.

Vicente says

CPAC voting for Rand Paul just shows how wingnuts double down on the crazy.

Perhaps he could dig up Ayn Rand's corpse for a showpiece, that'd put frosting on the cake.

You're right it has gone so well with the last 2

O Aqua Buddha, show us the light!

I'd rather see Ron run again. Why are they allowing his son to get so far? It worries me a bit in my gut. The republican party squashed Ron Paul, in a very deliberate display of eating their own. So why are the backing this young man? The republicans must feel they have him under control in a way they didn't have Ron, and that in itself is sending my instincts off.

Rand Paul is not a libertarian, banning abortions in all circumstances is not a libertarian approach, neither is banning gay marriage or banning unions. Libertarian's want less government control on personal choice. Should abortions, gay marriage or unions be funded with tax payer money? Of course not. I am not for abortions, nor would I even consider one myself under normal circumstances, but in the case of rape I'd be lieing if I said I would know what I'd do. It should be my choice, not the governments. I have no desire to marry a woman, do I think it's the government's job to ban gay marriage? Heck no. If I want to join a union that should also be my right. I'm waiting for the candidate who wants to preserve our liberties, as defined in the constitution. I want a candidate who thinks like Ron Paul on foreign policy, education, and privacy and like Ralph Nader on social liberties, the environment and energy. They both have a healthy stance on corporations and the federal reserve. I feel a lot of us feel underrepresented. Having to choose from only two parties is beyond ridiculous. How many people really fall neatly into the views of either party? The two party system is a huge part of the problem.

Red herring. I've stated this before in the past...at the federal level, a Republican president has almost zero ability to make meaningful changes to abortion law. Even if Ginsberg kicked the bucket during the term, it's unlikely the Supreme Court would take up such an issue. And even if it did, all that would happen is it would become a states rights issue, where almost every state would allow first and second trimester abortions and many would keep things as they are now.

Typical Democrat tactics...keep fighting wars that have already been won in order to preserve voting blocs...civil rights, equal pay for women, etc....

It was consensual.

Quigley says

If he's who he seems to be, we might have a new Teddy Roosevelt on our hands,
willing to tilt against the entrenched windmills that are grinding our people to dust.

Unlikely. His biggest campaign contibutor is the Club for Growth, which is dominated by Wall Street financiers and executives.

I'm not worried he will overturn Roe vs. Wade, it's next to impossible, nor am I Democrat, nor am I for abortions. I am concerned with Rand Paul's positions on civil liberties. We should always be concerned with any candidate who is ready to trample personal liberties based on his personal and narrow minded opinions. It's not about abortion in all circumstances, banning gay marriage and banning unions, it's about him being big government and fighting to ban liberty. Its not about whether you agree with with institution of gay marriage, it's about how much power do you believe our representatives should have to control our lives.

I hate alcohol and the only way you'd get it down my throat is by force, do I think it should be legal? Yes, because I believe in liberty. It's not about my personal belief about alcohol, it's about honoring the power of the Constitution, the ideals of a Democratic Republic and civil liberty. If someone drives after drinking alcohol they are a criminal, because they have endangered other people's civil liberties, and potentially the right of the other citizen to survive.

Sex should never be an issue the government deals in, unless it's not mutually consented, then it's a crime, because it took away someone's liberty and potentially even their life.

A person should have the right to join a union and form one, unless that union becomes violent and therefore takes someone's liberty or right to live.

The line is clear, just because you don't like it is never a reason to deny another their civil liberties under the constitution. Abortion unfortunately is a very devisive issue because of the question of when does life begin. Some people believe sperm is life, and clearly a future citizen, so masturbation is taking away another's right to life. Letting sperm die is even in the bible as wrong, the idea of abortion being wrong is not in the bible. I never trust someone in power who wants to control civil liberties or religion. It's not their job. They are a civil servant and representative, and that is their role, they are not parent, pastor or rabbi, so they should stick to their job, they have plenty to do that is in their job description. As citizens we should ask ourselves if we believe in the ideals of a democratic republic, or if we think a totalitarian government, plutocracy or Russian communism is a better way to go. I believe in the democratic republic model myself.

Thank you. I'll do my best. I've never been a good writer. That's why I kept to science, dance and math. I do tend to ramble on, sorry about that. I get a little excited sometimes. I can't talk about anything like this in my day to day life, so I just pour it out.

I could give two poops about your abortion issue or gay marriage or any of that. They are RED HERRINGS, meant to distract people from the real issues which are economic, and impassion them on subjects which will always be debatable between differing ideologies.
Meanwhile, the wealthy elite continue to steal all power from the people using economic and political tools. Make us poor by exporting not goods but jobs. Put us on the wrong side of the law if we object to being manhandled, anally raped by police, and our rights stolen. If they get the trifecta and make guns illegal, it'll be concentration camps within ten years.

No, I'm just not around people who believe that politics are an okay topic of discussion. I also teach science and ballet to teens and kids most of my day, and naturally I can't talk about economics or politics with them.

I also respect the varied intelligent opinions here. It keeps my mind from going into atrophy. I am a terrible writer, but this is the medium of Pat.net and so I do my best.

Quigley says

I could give two poops about your abortion issue or gay marriage or any of that. They are RED HERRINGS, meant to distract people from the real issues which are economic, and impassion them on subjects which will always be debatable between differing ideologies.

Meanwhile, the wealthy elite continue to steal all power from the people using economic and political tools. Make us poor by exporting not goods but jobs. Put us on the wrong side of the law if we object to being manhandled, anally raped by police, and our rights stolen. If they get the trifecta and make guns illegal, it'll be concentration camps within ten years.

I agree with you.

Like I said, it's not the issues themselves, but the willingness to take the liberties away, or worse ban them. Politicians should stay out of civil liberties altogether. I just don't trust candidates that would be WILLING to take away civil liberties, red herrings or not. I see this as leading towards the mentality that brings your last paragraph's prediction to life.

hrhjuliet says

I am concerned with Rand Paul's positions on civil liberties

Rand Paul is against DHS, against the Patriot act, supports the 4th amendment, wants to roll back federal laws to avoid overciminalizing, wants NSA requests in open court, is against drones, is against warrentless searches, wants to help immigrants and have them treated with respect, wants to roll back the war on drugs, wants gay marriage and abortion to be strictly states issues. I would say he is the best candidate by far on civil liberties in either party.

My reservations with Rand Paul lay in his very close relationships with corporations.

bob2356 says

hrhjuliet says

I am concerned with Rand Paul's positions on civil liberties

Rand Paul is against DHS, against the Patriot act, supports the 4th amendment, wants to roll back federal laws to avoid overciminalizing, wants NSA requests in open court, is against drones, is against warrentless searches, wants to help immigrants and have them treated with respect, wants to roll back the war on drugs, wants gay marriage and abortion to be strictly states issues. I would say he is the best candidate by far on civil liberties in either party.

My reservations with Rand Paul lay in his very close relationships with corporations.

You mentioned all the things I like about him, but I still don't trust his attempts to ban civil liberties or his stand on the environment. He may be the best the two parties have to offer right now, but the two party system is part of the problem. I want more choices and I think most people do too.

More choices would be nice. Does Ross Perot have a son? :P

Who cares about the other crap, how can you consider the others?

hrhjuliet says

I still don't trust his attempts to ban civil liberties

What civil liberties are you talking about. He has said he wants abortion and gay marriage to be states issues. As they should be. How is that a ban? His stand on abortion will probably cost him the Iowa primary which is dominated by rabid anti abortionists.

I'm not really pro Rand, but his positions are clear and I can respect that.

No, if that was the case I would agree with him. He attempted to BAN them and be part of legislation to do so. His voting record and his stand on the issues is available online. There are so many things I like about this guy, and I wish that his only position would have been a "stay out of it stance" and leave it to the States, I would have trusted him if that had been the case.

I want him to be the candidate I could get behind, but because of his attempts to ban liberties and his ignorance on the environment and scientific matters, I can't. It's more than likely he will get my vote looking at the options, but I really wanted to have a candidate that I could be enthusiastic about, but instead it's reluctant support. Support just the same, but I still have this fantasy some Ron Paul, Dali lama, Ralph Nader hybrid will appear and unite all the people who feel poorly represented by both parties. I know, I know, as likely as spotting a sparkly unicorn, but I can hope right? We never know what the future will bring.

Quigley says

Meanwhile, the wealthy elite continue to steal all power from the people using economic and political tools. Make us poor by exporting not goods but jobs.

And since Rind Paul is financed by Wall Street, what makes you think he'll do anything to counteract this?

You guys who would vote for a lying carpetbagging hag like Hillary almost scare me. Are you on powerful meds, or just pot and alchohol?

Besides, Hillary may be busy, she's never found that "vast right-wing conspiracy" that was attacking Bill by accusing him falsely of consorting with Monica.

Joking about fugly hags aside, you are all aware that Hillary is not in good health right?

Call it Crazy says

hrhjuliet says

I can't talk about anything like this in my day to day life, so I just pour it out.

Will we need to charge you for therapy sessions here??

I'll need to see your insurance card first.

clambo says

you are all aware that Hillary is not in good health right?

I don't know anything about any health issues, but I do think she's too old.

hrhjuliet says

The line is clear, just because you don't like it is never a reason to deny another their civil liberties under the constitution.

People often forget that if the government has governance over your body then you would be at their mercy no matter which way the winds were heading. It would be from that same "right to decide for you" that a government could determine that you MUST have an abortion.

The problem is that the GOP electorate does not care about civil liberties. The only GOP anger over the NSA shenanigans comes from those under 30 - they are 3 elections away from being a significant force in the GOP.

If Paul is elected, all the anti-spending and abortion-banning aspects of his agenda will get play; the surveillance-state initiatives will be quietly dropped.

turtledove says

hrhjuliet says

The line is clear, just because you don't like it is never a reason to deny another their civil liberties under the constitution.

People often forget that if the government has governance over your body then you would be at their mercy no matter which way the winds were heading. It would be from that same "right to decide for you" that a government could determine that you MUST have an abortion.

Yes. The government bans slavery, which is really a bad thing, because it means that the government can enslave us!

turtledove says

hrhjuliet says

The line is clear, just because you don't like it is never a reason to deny another their civil liberties under the constitution.

People often forget that if the government has governance over your body then you would be at their mercy no matter which way the winds were heading. It would be from that same "right to decide for you" that a government could determine that you MUST have an abortion.

Exactly my concern. Historically it's one a liberty at a time on the way towards totalitarianism.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

turtledove says

hrhjuliet says

The line is clear, just because you don't like it is never a reason to deny another their civil liberties under the constitution.

People often forget that if the government has governance over your body then you would be at their mercy no matter which way the winds were heading. It would be from that same "right to decide for you" that a government could determine that you MUST have an abortion.

Yes. The government bans slavery, which is really a bad thing, because it means that the government can enslave us!

Not sure if it's accidental, but I suspect you're starting to catch on! A government powerful enough to control its citizens lives completely is just like North Korea.

Call it Crazy says

Will Obamacare cover her sessions??

Ooooh. I'm sorry. We're not accepting Covered California plans at this time.

Call it Crazy says

turtledove says

Call it Crazy says

hrhjuliet says

I can't talk about anything like this in my day to day life, so I just pour it out.

Will we need to charge you for therapy sessions here??

I'll need to see your insurance card first.

Will Obamacare cover her sessions??

Nah, I doubt it. Honestly, they probably don't cover people who have BASD: Bay Area Stress Disorder, or teachers that have no one but superficial soccer moms and children to talk to. I would need to fall under a label. Labels are what gets you the help you need when you are in the system.

My son is twice-exceptional, but since that is not a disorder that falls under the special list of labels my son can not receive any of the help a child with ADHD or autism receives, yet the teacher and the parents of twice-gifted children would argue that they are just as difficult and in need of extra support. Nope, don't fall under the label, no help for you.

A Bay Area support group for citizens tired of affluenza, ignorance and traffic would be nice.

Vicente says

CPAC voting for Rand Paul just shows how wingnuts double down on the crazy.

Perhaps he could dig up Ayn Rand's corpse for a showpiece, that'd put frosting on the cake.

CPAC is a solid predictor of the eventual party nominee. Whoever wins it, won't be the nominee.

Eventual Democratic nominees Nader and Kucinich are watching it closely, however.

bgamall4 says

What a lot of you guys don't understand is that there are people in both parties that are starting to question the New World Order. I question Rand Paul's sincerity, however, I do believe he doesn't like the NWO as it stands. But neither did Chuck Hagel who believed that the Pentagon was about to establish a new world order independent from the president:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-why-obama-picked-hagel-for-defense-secretary/2013/01/27/b87eb8ce-68ae-11e2-af53-7b2b2a7510a8_story.html

Military Industrial Complex is too large, a president alone can't control it. All these Neo right wingers, new world order, they just want war, it's their life it's their paycheck.

I think historically we were the first nation in the world where military was controlled by civilian government, not the other way around. And to me it feels like we are walking away from that, we are turning into a nation where military is growing just for the sake of growing and is becoming our primary objective.

Continuing on that point. That's one credit I can give to Obama, he is better at avoiding land wars. Sure he bombed Lybia, and has many faults. But at least he is pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and is not letting right wingers draw us into another quagmire. Because I tell you, Fox and their group of friends are itching for a cold war with Russia over Ukraine.

Paul's odd and strangely written ideas on the Ukraine "crisis." One can see why in the past he was plagiarizing, he can't or whoever wrote this can't write. There is a robotic feel to the piece. He seems to be straining to be tough, yet isolationist and it comes off as forced and kind of weird.

http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/

bgamall4 says

rdm says

Paul's odd and strangely written ideas on the Ukraine "crisis." One can see why in the past he was plagiarizing, he can't or whoever wrote this can't write. There is a robotic feel to the piece. He seems to be straining to be tough, yet isolationist and it comes off as forced and kind of weird.

http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/

He claims to be isolationist, which is what we need, but then says we need to take a stronger stance against Putin? He is off his rocker.

Agreed - I would like to see him much more isolationist, but that's a stupid tradition not only the Republican party, but the whole nation, Democrats and Republicans, haven't been able to break with yet and you probably won't get enough votes by not banging the drums of war. You can be a strong isolationist leader, but that means you don't make weakling bullshit phrases like Obama, about drawing a line and then not follow up (or for that matter half the deficit during your first term and instead increase it). Just say you are NOT going to intervene and stick with it.

I voted Ron Paul in the primaries. Rand is water-down, made alliances with the "right" sort of people that all candidates must make before they are allowed to be taken seriously. His father wasn't willing to make those compromises, and I admire that. However, the son hasn't fallen so far from the family tree that he's completely lost the connection. I don't see anyone better being allowed to run, or better, being allowed to win.

If you were a libertarian politician who wanted to bring back democracy to government and power to the people, how would you get past te establishment gatekeepers? Perhaps by pretending to toe the line, accepting money from the Club for growth, giving lip service to the military industrial complex, and refraining from expressing radical ideologies.
Funny, that's exactly what Rand has done.

Quigley says

If you were a libertarian politician who wanted to bring back democracy to government and power to the people, how would you get past te establishment gatekeepers? Perhaps by pretending to toe the line, accepting money from the Club for growth, giving lip service to the military industrial complex, and refraining from expressing radical ideologies.

Funny, that's exactly what Rand has done.

Agreed - that may be the only way. But the pull doesn't stop once in office, so he would have to prove himself even more if he gets elected. But given all current options at both major parties, Rand would be likely the best choice for real change. He is also the strongest on civil liberties which is a big plus.