patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,197,372 comments by 14,108 users - gabbar, Patrick online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 34 - 60 of 60 Search these comments
hrhjuliet
2014 Mar 10, 3:02am
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.
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.
hrhjuliet
2014 Mar 10, 3:15am
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.
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.
hrhjuliet
2014 Mar 10, 3:59am
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.
finehoe
2014 Mar 10, 4:00am
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?
turtledove
2014 Mar 10, 4:25am
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.
finehoe
2014 Mar 10, 4:26am
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.
turtledove
2014 Mar 10, 4:36am
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.
HydroCabron
2014 Mar 10, 4:40am
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.
HydroCabron
2014 Mar 10, 4:41am
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!
hrhjuliet
2014 Mar 10, 4:44am
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.
Shaman
2014 Mar 10, 6:04am
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.
turtledove
2014 Mar 10, 6:19am
Will Obamacare cover her sessions??
Ooooh. I'm sorry. We're not accepting Covered California plans at this time.
hrhjuliet
2014 Mar 10, 8:16am
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.
CL
2014 Mar 10, 10:44am
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.
FortWayne
2014 Mar 11, 4:35am
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:
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.
FortWayne
2014 Mar 11, 4:37am
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/
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.
Shaman
2014 Mar 12, 2:19am
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.
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.
Vicente
2014 Mar 12, 3:55am
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.
For a previous example of how well this worked out, see Alan Greenspan.
The double-naught spy from the Randist cult managed to cloak himself in sufficient double-talk and mumbling he escaped notice, despite bringing Mom to the Oval Office:
Uncle Al was a true believer in turning the Federal Reserve, SEC, and any other financial watchdog into donut-eating do-nothings because the MIRACLE OF THE MARKETS would run things best without interference. He famously opined that "fraud doesn't exist" to Brooksley Born as why she shouldn't be allowed any control over the shadowy derivatives market.
How well did that work out?
FortWayne
2014 Mar 12, 12:13pm
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.
He has no idea who his audience yet. Ron Paul was much better at it.
Vicente
2014 Mar 12, 1:11pm
The libertarians forgot to say, we are for deregulation except for the gatekeepers, the banksters.
Libertarians worship money. Greed is good. Who has the most money? Bankers and financiers. Therefore nothing finance can do is wrong, and it should be allowed to run wild. Once you start down the path of believing that Richie Rich is automatically the most virtuous element of America, then there's just no bottom to the depravity & fraud you will excuse. If a problem occurs, it's because we didn't go far enough in crowning Richie Rich as the emperor and giving him ultimate power.
« First « Previous Comments 34 - 60 of 60 Search these comments
In a straw poll, conservatives pick this guy as GOP nominee with 30% of the vote, that's 19% more than the second pick. His father was roundly snubbed in 2008 in a shameful display by republican leaders, candidates, and media (especially Fox News). The son has less political baggage, but less pure libertarian ideals. I'd still take him over Hillary, tho. She's as establishment as is possible to be.
What I think we are seeing is this: the old guard at the GOP is realizing that their methods are never going to work. They need a reformer to even have a chance, even if that's someone who is outside the system. They can't shout this guy down this time.
Hillary will be running on a platform of 8 years of terrible economy, record deficits, amazing debt accruation, BENGHAZI OMG!, and dictatorial abuse of presidential powers that has given Obama one of the worst ratings in recent history. She will have to spend her time distancing herself from an administration she was a part of.
While Rand is going to have a platform for his new message. 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. History repeats itself, and we could use an upward swing to the cycle.
#politics