Rand Paul: GOP Must ‘Agree to Disagree’ on Social Issues in Order to Expand Party

Mediaite ^ | March 14th, 2014 | by Andrew Kirell

[MrEdd]

Won’t be agreeing to disagree.
Also won’t vote for any ticket with a libertarian in the mix.

[greene66]

Open up the GOP up to the homosex, dope and depravity agenda? Yeah, right. As if the GOP isn’t already a major mess of a Party that’s doing everything it humanly can to push me away. And now, the prospect of the GOP ditching the last few tiny threads that kept me connected to them, and joining the Dem Party in the same putrid, degenerate sewer?

This pretty much cinches it for me. I’ve had major qualms about Rand Paul (primarily due to his weakness on amnesty), but I never entirely closed the door on him. Well, that door is now closing. I just don’t see how I could ever give this guy my vote.

[DannyTN]

but I was talking about “Conservatives” not Republicans.

[DannyTN]

but I was talking about “Conservatives” not Republicans.

[soycd]

>Evidence the Libertarian party is infiltrating the Republican Party with their immoral stances
>FOR POT!

FOR BOOZE!

Don’t forget the alcohol!

[mjp]

Compromising and making concessions on moral principles in order to be flexible and preserving peace makes a man helpless and is the same thing as a surrender to evil.Rand Paul needs to realize the goal of secular humanists and marxists is the total marginalization of values of the Christian worldview,so that America can become a secular state that is just one among many secular states that are governed by a one world secular humanist government that want to impose socialism.

"All those who share the vision of the human community as part of one world should be willing to take nay measures that will awaken world opinion to bring it about." --Lucile W. Green

[ansel12]

There are a lot of conservatives who believe in states rights. Me being one of them.

What does state rights have to do with libertarian social liberalism and federal law?

The feds recognizing state gay marriages, and abortion on federal land, gay marriage and immigration, we know that "libertarian" means liberal on social issues at all levels of government and American culture.

[ansel12]

The simple fact is that conservatives aren’t going to win without picking up at least some of the libertarian vote.

By now you should know that you can't compromise with the left, they never stop.

Either libertarians will vote for our economics and choke down that they are allowing conservatism, or they will vote for the democrats on social issues, and choke down that they are supporting democrat economics, and that social conservatism is all that works for economic conservatism.

At some point, individual libertarians will grow up enough to realize that social liberalism makes economic conservatism and small government, impossible.

[GeronL]

federal courts imposing it unconstitutionally needs to be stopped as a big first step.

[Theodore R.]

So why doesn’t Rand just “agree to disagree” on his choice of McC!

[ansel12]

Social liberals vote against free markets.

[GeronL]

notice the compromising always goes one way

[GeronL]

bye bye time

[PapaNew]

Right, because “social liberals” are Socialists. Why don’t we call them what they are? Tyrants and Socialists. They’re certainly not “liberals” (lovers of freedom which by definition means an absence of government).

[ziravan]

What Rand Paul proposes IS a losing strategy. Some things you can compromise on. Some things you can’t.

I’m not now nor will I be a member of the GOP-e. I see no reason to become a member of the GOP-libertarian wing. Either way is a compromise too far.

The libertarians have far more to gain by joining conservatives than the other way around. I’m tired of being told that if I just sacrifice my values, I can win. Maybe but at that point I couldn’t care less about your hollow victory.

[DJ MacWoW]

Dear Rand Paul:

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”–when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

It was a feeling that there was not a sufficient difference now between the parties that kept a majority of the voters away from the polls. When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.- CPAC Ronald Reagan 1975

[Georgia Girl 2]

“Paul maintained that his own view of gay marriage is one that allows the states to make decisions based on local mores”

Just because you believe that gay marriage should be a states rights issue does not a Libertarian make you. It does not even mean you are advocating for gay marriage.

Just like laws agains’t driving too slow in the left hand lane should be decided by the individual states. :-)

[minnesota_bound]

How much bribe money is Rand Paul getting from the democrat party?

[ansel12]

Libertarians fighting social conservatism, is social liberalism.

It is why they call themselves libertarians.

[ansel12]

What does state rights have to do with libertarian social liberalism and federal law?

The feds recognizing state gay marriages, and abortion on federal land, gay marriage and immigration, we know that “libertarian” means liberal on social issues at all levels of government and American culture.

States don’t make the laws that I just brought up on abortion, marriage and immigration and employment at the federal level.