Posted on 04/27/2014 2:50:17 PM PDT by Resettozero
Telegram: You’re going to join U.S. Sen. Susan Collins for a state party fundraiser today. She’s defended National Security Agency spying programs you oppose, and she’s also running against a Democrat, Shenna Bellows, who comes pretty close to sharing your views on that and other privacy issues. Do you support her, despite disagreement on many of those issues? Rand Paul: I wholeheartedly endorse Senator Collins for re-election. I think she’s doing a great job for Maine and for the country. ... I don’t really know, exactly, what her position is on the NSA; you’d have to ask her about that. I just know my position, but I think we’re a big political party. There’s room for not-entire agreement on every issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It’s funny how vague you guys get, and only use emotional keywords, in an effort to conceal your actual politics.
“pragmatism == situational ethics == moral relativism == rationalization” == eastern daylight bedtime == goodnight all.
R2z
the bottom line is that neither part wants outsiders actually trying to change stuff in any significant or substantial way thanit is right now.
2/3 of these putzes are lawyers. tell me that’s statesmen citizen representation. tell me the common man is represeted.
part == party
damn tablet
What we should be calling for is the installation of a representative form of government. We would win in a landslide.
And most people would never realize thats what they were supposed to have all along.
I don’t have any thing to hide. Freedom is my key word. I have been here for years. I am socially conservative and fiscally conservative, however the conservatives are losing and losing badly. Not only are they losing, a totalitarian fascism is overtaking the country, that will imperil me and my children and all we hold dear.
The fascism can only be turned with one word, freedom. And freedom attract many sorts of people. I would rather stand under the banner of freedom with many others, practicing my social and fiscal conservatism, and working to get conservatism in the marketplace of ideas, and be able to practice its tenets in my own life and in the lives of those I choose to be with, than to be marginalized, made toothless, and killed by totalitarian fascists.
Nothing like splintering people whose underlying beliefs stand on the foundation of the Constitution and freedom and have them infighting. Alinsky tactics work because people hold onto their little agendas and fail to work together to fight the oncoming hordes.
Since Paul is so non-conservative, isn’t he anti-freedom?
He is running for president, as the most powerful man in the federal government, yet he has called for dropping opposition to gay marriage, and come out against social conservatism, he seems to have dropped his pro-life position, has come out as soft on the border, is joining with th race baiters and has an agenda to change the GOP platform like his man Mitt Romney.
What does emptily chanting the word “freedom” have to do with promoting him on his Susan Collins thread?
Since Paul is so non-conservative, isn’t he anti-freedom?
_______________
Conservative and freedom are not inherently connected. There are many ways to be conservative and only a few ways to be free.
Being dismissive about my opinion on the importance of freedom doesn’t make you right. I will stand with my forefathers. And this is just as much a Paul thread as a Collins thread.
What I’m calling you on is your evasion and using the word “freedom” while you are selling oppression and liberalism.
This nation was founded by conservatives, not libertarians, in fact libertarians would have been lynched as they tried to argue for gay marriage and abortion a homosexual military, and porn and hookers.
A man running for president who expressed an acceptance for homosexuality and gay marriage and possibly even abortion, at the federal level, in the military, federal employment and immigration, would have been thought of as insane, not as one promoting “freedom”.
What I’m calling you on is your evasion and using the word “freedom” while you are selling oppression and liberalism.
________________
You can call as much as you like, the country was founded by many people who were radicals, conservative by these times. I think that Paul is right, these are issues to be determined at the state level.
This nation was founded by conservatives, not libertarians, in fact libertarians would have been lynched as they tried to argue for gay marriage and abortion a homosexual military, and porn and hookers.
A man running for president who expressed an acceptance for homosexuality and gay marriage and possibly even abortion, at the federal level, in the military, federal employment and immigration, would have been thought of as insane, not as one promoting “freedom”.
Rand isn’t running for Governor, Rand is a Senator voting on federal law, and is running for president, gays in the military, abortion on federal lands, gay marriage in the military and in federal employment and in immigration are not “state” issues, they are issues of bigger and more costly federal government.
Rand isn’t running for Governor, Rand is a Senator voting on federal law, and is running for president, gays in the military, abortion on federal lands, gay marriage in the military and in federal employment and in immigration are not “state” issues, they are issues of bigger and more costly federal government.
______________
Rand can have an opinion on what are federal matters, just like the rest of us.
“What you wrote in Post 59 sounds sensible and reasonable. But...
We conservatives have been sensible and reasonable for many elections and this is where we have arrived. This is where we now stand.”
We conservatives need something amounting to a revolution both culturally and politically. But to accomplish that we need control of both the public education system(To start teaching about Liberty and limited Government again) and we need control of certain parts of the Defense systems so that we can keep them from being used against our own people.
I ask not for your computerize believes but for careful planing and preparing for the decades that are to come.
Our land will be made into a military dictatorship if we do not reshape the teeth. Our people will become slaves if we do not teach them of the true nature of liberty being derived from that of the individual and at threat by the actions of the State and other such organizations.
Please explain better this sentence:
“I ask not for your computerize believes but for careful planing and preparing for the decades that are to come.”
“The Soviets used to call people nuts that disagreed with their intentions too. then imprisoned them. Even when there was picture proof.
Just sayin’...”
The difference being I don’t disagree with the intentions I believe Rand has but rather with the intentions you believe Rand has. I intend to do nothing more than more about this disagreement than Talk, and read.
Forgive the misplaced word. I meant to say:
“I ask not for your compromised believes but for careful planing and preparing for the decades that are to come.”
There are things that need to be done to check the dangerous potential of the growing evil in this country. We haven’t the power to do some of the more simple of theses without the imperfect.
What Most people here are looking for is perfection in ideology and values which is no different than looking for perfection in friends.
and history, just as the media often looks for the same perfection in leaders. You hold people to such standards and you will find that too few meet those standards.
Presidents don’t merely have opinions on the Executive branch “just like the rest of us.”
I think you have made clear why you were so vague, and kept using the left’s/libertarian code words for the left’s agenda.
Presidents don’t merely have opinions on the Executive branch “just like the rest of us.”
I think you have made clear why you were so vague, and kept using the left’s/libertarian code words for the left’s agenda.
__________________
I think that there is no discussion, just attacks here. You are right, I have been trolling here at FR for 16 years just to annoy people like you. And people like you are the reason we are losing so many posters.
What whiny excuse? Get off your high-horse and get back to reality. I’ll ask my DEAD-SERIOUS question again: If the only other ballot choice (this means we are talking general election here) is for a DEM candidate which would increase the count towards a dem majority in either house or a GOP that is not 100% idealogically pure in *your* estimation, what can you do?
As for me, I vote for & directly support the conservative candidate in the primaries. In the general, I hope I have the same candidate to vote for but if not, I vote to deprive the dems of odds in their favor.
What does your seemingly inflexible idealogical purity allow *YOU* to do in that circumstance? Stomp off home and not vote? Perhaps something equally self-defeating like writing in a no-chance-at-all candidate on a general election ballot?
Or do you opt for the GOP candidate (squish or not) in that general election and then get right back to work promoting/supporting conservatives for the next election and keep building momentum to overcome the squishes next time?
Whiny excuse my @$$...
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.