Rand Champions the Constitution at Utah Campaign Event

1 posted on 08/29/2015 10:45:28 PM PDT by z taxman

The Loose Cannon Hits the Mark Again.

2 posted on 08/29/2015 10:55:29 PM PDT by Paladin2 (Ive given up on aphostrophys and spell chek on my current device...)

Hits the mark most of the time the time:

“Name: Rand Paul

Senate: Kentucky, Republican

Cumulative Freedom Index Score: 94%

Status: Active Member of the Senate

Score Breakdown:
100% (114th Congress: 2015-2016); 92% (113th Congress: 2013-2014); 94% (112th Congress: 2011-2012)”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/freedomindex/profile.php?id=P000603

3 posted on 08/29/2015 10:57:02 PM PDT by z taxman

The GOPee Senate is so lame that Rand is ~#5 if not #4.

4 posted on 08/29/2015 10:59:49 PM PDT by Paladin2 (Ive given up on aphostrophys and spell chek on my current device...)

Rand’s flaw is that not only did he start to run a general election campaign to soon but that he is running a campaign that is in direct contrast to the one he ran in 2010 and his senate voting record.

He needs to talk about his record, stop with this new Republican crap and just be himself...because as his record shows, he has done good work in the senate and has a strong conservative record. Him and Cruz are my choices.

5 posted on 08/29/2015 11:06:07 PM PDT by z taxman

Rand Paul lost any chance at the election the moment he started pandering to the race baiting left over the Michael Brown shooting, and now he’s doing it again with Hispanics in response to Donald Trump. Also he whines like a limp wristed sissy. Hence his polls have plummeted and will never rise again.

6 posted on 08/30/2015 1:26:49 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)

My ass.

Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"
I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.
[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]

Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance
...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.
[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]

Rand Paul's immigration speech
...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.

Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.

Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.

Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...

This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.

Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reform
Latinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...
[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]

Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists]
[Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]

7 posted on 08/30/2015 2:36:02 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW)

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Let me ask you a question Puny, how do you think the demographics of the U.S. in 50 years from now or 20 even will help any sort of conservative movement if overtures aren’t made to minority groups? Is Paul’s pandering helpful to his campaign? Nope. But at least I know why he’s doing it.

These ethnic blocs must be pryed from the progressives or else when whites are even more of a minority in the future conservatives will also be in the minority.

8 posted on 08/30/2015 2:40:03 AM PDT by z taxman

Is Paul’s pandering helpful to his campaign? Nope. But at least I know why he’s doing it.

In other words, you already anticipated my objection that pandering only empowers the race baiters and won't get you any votes, but you still chose to waste my time by asking a question you knew was pointless? "We gotta make overtures!" "Yeah, I know they don't work!! But I'm a Paultard and don't care, herp da derp."

By the way, if you actually cared about the demographic problem, you'd support the border wall and Donald Trump. The only way to make "overtures" to the minority groups are: getting them jobs and not talking to them like perpetual victims.

in the future conservatives will also be in the minority.

You aren't a conservative, so what do you care? By the way, I'm Hispanic. I'm a sign of what's to come, if you stop race pimping.

9 posted on 08/30/2015 2:45:12 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

Hey Puny, newsflash conservatism does not entail marching lockstep with your particular opinions. I agree that illegal immigration is a problem, just as it was toward the end of the Roman Empire. However the problem can be dealt with most effectively and efficiently with economic measures and getting rid of handouts that illegals receive and yes that includes public education. If you want to say thats not a conservative approach then you’re deluded.

And I never said I didn’t care, I wish Paul hadn’t pandered to minority groups. Thats not to say his outreach to the blacks, talking about how conservatism would benefit minorities, is a bad idea.. but some of the rhetoric he used is a little jarring. That said, I know why he’s doing it. Its a matter of execution thats the problem.

All that said, look at Paul’s voting record and his various conservative scores (all in the 90s). He’s done more to further the cause of conservatism than people like Jeff Sessions, or Tim Scott or Joni Ernst. And it irritates me that so many conservatives throw the baby out with the bathwater because they don’t like his campaign.

10 posted on 08/30/2015 2:59:18 AM PDT by z taxman

Hey Puny, newsflash conservatism does not entail marching lockstep with your particular opinions. I agree that illegal immigration is a problem,

I really doubt that since, as seen in that informational post on this thread, your guy Rand supports amnesty. Fits with your opposition to the wall.

However the problem can be dealt with most effectively and efficiently with economic measures and getting rid of handouts that illegals receive and yes that includes public education.

That's not going to do anything with anchor babies, nor will it stop the drug smuggling nor terrorists who will be crossing a border you want only pretend enforcement of. Plus, after citizenship, which is inevitable with legal status, that's going to be 40 million votes for welfare.

None of what you say is at all feasable. It will never happen. Your policies, like your candidate, are self-defeating and suicidal.

All that said, look at Paul’s voting record and his various conservative scores (all in the 90s).

Once Rand Paul became a traitor to his country on immigration and siding with the race baiters, his actual conservative score-- outside of dumb websites-- plummeted to -50.

That's why Rand only has 2 percent in some of these polls. That's why he will eventually drop out, at least until it's proven that his attack-dog status for the GOPe is proven to be a waste of money.

11 posted on 08/30/2015 3:09:35 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

If its terrorism you’re concerned about then you would also have to build a wall along Canada. The 9/11 hijackers BTW were here legally and didn’t have to cross any border illegally. My only problem with the wall is it seems like a waste, 20 foot wall meets 20 foot ladder, or more elaborate tunnels. It doesn’t take away the magnets which are:

Economic (jobs)
Perks (government assistance, free public education)

Now get rid of those perks, magnet gone. How is any of that suicidal? How is slapping companies that employ illegals with harsh penalties suicidal? How is taking away perks such as public education to illegals suicidal? I mean, if you’re a conservative you should be for that. About anchor babies, I favor a constitutional amendment... oh and so does Rand.. in fact he brought it up in 2011 and still talks about it to this day.

Drug dealers? Get rid of the prohibition on drugs. Cartels are the biggest backers of the drug wars. Look at how the Kennedy’s made their fortune, they were quite happy with the prohibition in the 20’s.

12 posted on 08/30/2015 3:20:32 AM PDT by z taxman

My only problem with the wall is it seems like a waste, 20 foot wall meets 20 foot ladder, or more elaborate tunnels.

And yet it protects Israel really well:

That said, a wall is a force multiplier. It is not the end all and be all.

How is any of that suicidal?

Because your candidate will grant amnesty to 40 million illegals who will get all of those perks you mention.

About anchor babies, I favor a constitutional amendment... oh and so does Rand..

Does he? It's probably a result of the "me too" syndrome. He's a shameless opportunist after all. If so, he probably favors the constitutional amendment because he knows it'll somewhat appease conservatives while being impossible to actually accomplish. That's why he won't come near challenging the false interpretation of this amendment.

Drug dealers? Get rid of the prohibition on drugs. Cartels are the biggest backers of the drug wars.

No thanks, don't want a liberal drug culture and the debasement of society worse than it already is. We'll just build a border wall and increase enforcement. Then you won't be able to satisfy your drug habit since the vast majority of drugs come across an unguarded border.

13 posted on 08/30/2015 3:30:44 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

"No thanks, don't want a liberal drug culture and the debasement of society worse than it already is. We'll just build a border wall and increase enforcement. Then you won't be able to satisfy your drug habit since the vast majority of drugs come across an unguarded border." Why should it be up to you what a person does in regard to his own body. If a person wants to stick their face unto a frying pan, go to it. Its up to culture to enforce and impart strength of character onto itself, not the government. Because your candidate will grant amnesty to 40 million illegals who will get all of those perks you mention. So then you support ending entitlements to illegals and slapping penalties unto business's that employ them then. Great, so you agree with me. And yet it protects Israel really well: Israel is a tiny country, its border length pales in comparison with ours in regard to both Mexico and Canada. Does he? It's probably a result of the "me too" syndrome. He's a shameless opportunist after all. If so, he probably favors the constitutional amendment because he knows it'll somewhat appease conservatives while being impossible to actually accomplish. That's why he won't come near challenging the false interpretation of this amendment. Me too? Rand proposed this in 2011 when Trump was still shapeshifting into his conservative persona. Also, illegals who commit crimes are under our jurisdiction. The exclusion in the 14th amendment is applying to the likes of diplomats.

14 posted on 08/30/2015 3:42:24 AM PDT by z taxman

Why should it be up to you what a person does in regard to his own body.

The United States as envisioned by the founding fathers was always meant to promote virtue among the citizenry, as well as to have a positive Christian attitude and mission, though not favoring one denomination over another. This is clear from their speeches and actions. The reason is simple: You can't have a nation with screwed up people. And your drug culture is exactly that: really screwed up people.

So then you support ending entitlements to illegals and slapping penalties unto business's that employ them then. Great, so you agree with me.

Sure I am, but it's just empty air from you though. That's my point. It's meaningless because your guy supports amnesty, so they'll all be legal anyway and it will not matter, nor will it stop new people from coming in to get on that pathway to citizenship. You also do not support the border wall, nor say anything about the doubling or tripling of the border patrol and security, nor the ending of sanctuary cities.

Israel is a tiny country, its border length pales in comparison with ours in regard to both Mexico and Canada.

It seems your argument is basically: "don't enforce the border because it's impossible anyway." Since if you were thinking logically, you would embrace the wall, as it would mean it wouldn't require a vast army to secure the border. Instead, we can secure the border with a wall, with the right technology, and not have to have a million people standing guard or looking through the bushes to find a guy.

Also, illegals who commit crimes are under our jurisdiction. The exclusion in the 14th amendment is applying to the likes of diplomats.

"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ... to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States ... The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by being naturalized ..." (Supreme Court opinion in Elk v. Wilkins (1884))

15 posted on 08/30/2015 3:57:40 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

” You also do not support the border wall, nor say anything about the doubling or tripling of the border patrol and security, nor the ending of sanctuary cities.”

I support all of that. That ought to be implicit from any poster on a conservative site. Der

16 posted on 08/30/2015 4:09:58 AM PDT by z taxman

I support all of that. That ought to be implicit from any poster on a conservative site. Der

You support the border wall now? Here's what you wrote in another thread:

"A wall and mass deportation is not cost efficient or effective."

In this thread you've essentially said the same thing.

17 posted on 08/30/2015 4:15:51 AM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)

To: Greetings_Puny_Humans

No Puny, I support beefing up border patrol and ending sanctuary cities. That was what you were referring to in the preceding post to me. You’re gay little ploy to make it seem like I was referring to border walls is just that... a gay little ploy.

18 posted on 08/30/2015 1:33:11 PM PDT by z taxman

You quoted me on the border wall and said you supported "all of that," so you're either incompetent or losing your mind. And without the wall, your border security is pretty useless.

As for the gay baiting, remember, it's you defending the effeminate politician who supports amnesty and pandering to race baiters. You are not conservative.

19 posted on 08/30/2015 2:34:56 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)

By the way, Trump said wall should be between 50 and 60 feet. No 20 foot ladders will suffice here.

20 posted on 08/30/2015 5:12:09 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794