Posted on 09/25/2013 11:46:14 AM PDT by exist
Rand Paul calls Ted Cruz's tactics "not necessarily fair".
(Excerpt) Read more at mofopolitics.com ...
Actually they were banned, many of them with signup dates in the 90's. It was a "game" yall played, outing anyone that he hinted at being a paulbot. Yall played it well and now there a several hundred less freepers, Good Job!.
Reports from Mother Jones and MSNBC don't count. Get a clue.
Same MO as the Klowne Posse before them. Engage, isolate, get the target angry enough to violate the ToS, yell for Admin Moderator.
Rand is daddy’s boy
I learned what a “Teabagger” was on those threads....
No, these were FReeper comments; hence my trying to verify what (if anything) he actually said, publically.
Which just goes to show that you have no interest in being honest.
So, you are counting on what others said someone else said that Rand said...
“Heard it through the grapevine...”
Listen to the audio. See if anything Rand says even comes close to matching the PDS premise that Rand sides with McConnell against Cruz. In fact, he goes on at length giving his ideas on how to shut down Obamacare.
Which, since that is what Glenn asked him... Makes sense to anyone that doesn’t have a delusional axe to grind against a rather good Senator. Maybe not the best, but stellar compared to the likes of McCain and McConnell.
Yup, I seen the game played a few times. I really hated seeing those 90’s and early 2000’s signup posters getting banned. Made me sick to watch it.
Anyone that uses that term, deserved a broken nose.
I almost took the bait a few times myself. And I’m not necessarily a Ron Paul supporter. Especially with Ron doing utterly moronic things like standing on a podium next to the likes of Douglass Kucinich.
I don’t care how hot Douggies wife is, you NEVER side with a Communist. At least, never do it in public view with the camera’s rolling. Every clock is right at least twice a day, but that doesn’t mean you need to keep a broken clock on your nightstand.
A little awkward with that analogy, but I think it still works from a logic standpoint.
At least with Rand, we don’t have the apparent inconsistencies we saw with Ron. Rand is a lot more “conservative” without the “kook” factor so far.
Well... Other than the GOP-e types trying to undermine him and paint him as a “kook” at every turn... Even when what Rand is doing is EXACTLY what most of us here have said needs to happen.
I thought revenues, that fund soldiers, continue to come in even when got't "shuts down". We've had several "shut downs" in the past...did the soldiers not get paid, then?
Ron Paul was my congressman, so I liked him. I never supported him for president. He just does not have the people skills a president needs. Plus there was that very large “kook” factor you mentioned. President’s need to be solid, not kooky. While I understand his reasons and they have some merit, his blame the USA for the rise of radical Islam was IHMO very short sighted and ignored the fact that the USA was fighting for it’s life in the cold war. However he was very very good on domestic/monetary policy. If the right ever expects to have power again then we need to make peace with the libertarian wing of the right. Please notice the little “l” in libertarian so as NOT to confuse that with the total nut jobs in the Libertarian Party which no conservative would have anything to do with.
Should the fed gov shutdown, then the executive branch would first cut/defund the most necessary and popular things first so as to make whoever was responsible for the shutdown looks a bad as possible. Happens every time and a every level of gov whenever a gov shutdown occurs
I been looking into this.
My understanding is their pay gets delayed until the shutdown ends.
Now why didnt that happen in that early 1996 three week shutdown?
Late 1995 Congress already passed a defense funding bill so that shutdown didnt affect that. In fact a number of things were funded prior.
In this case nothing has been passed so we get to see a real shutdown.
So I think Rand is right, soldiers not getting paid till later will not sit well.
Finger pointing time.
Nothing for me to disagree with in that post. ;-)
Nah, I'll vote for Cruz. Libertarians like Ron and Rand are right only maybe half the time (right on most domestic spending issues...but wrong on immigration, drug policy, the war on Islamists, same-sex marriage). That's better than a Democrat but I'll vote for a real conservative who's right all the time like Cruz if I get the chance.
Closed border, pro-life, pro-RKBA, pro-free market, limited FedGov...
Yeah... He’s only “half right”...
Like I said, most of you detractors already have your mind made up from either outright lies or from half-truth misinformation.
I like Cruz too. We need all of them we can get.
For the 2016 nod, Palin, Rand, Cruz, West, Nugent, Gowdy... Pick any two in any order and let’s get this done.
Libertarians in general are for open borders. As I understand it, Rand Paul is for technically securing the border, but would almost certainly vote for amnesty for the illegals already here once that was done. And my position is securing the border is the less important part of it, because so many illegally here did not sneak in, but got in legally on a visa. The only way to enforce the “border” is to punish those who are here illegally and make sure they can’t get jobs or a path to residency or citizenship. There can be no rewards, leniency or amnesty for those who are here illegally, period.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/rand-paul-gop-welcome-immigrants-94023.html
“[Rand Paul] urged the House to consider adopting his own approach to reform, which involves creating a mechanism for Congress to ascertain whether the border is secure before undocumented immigrants achieve legal status.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.