Stand With Rand!

[SicEmBaylor]

My thoughts and feelings on the last two Republican nominees is no secret. People have criticized my politics by saying, “SicEm, don’t you know that no candidate is perfect? You have to compromise.” Or they would tell me, “You have to vote for the lesser of two evils! Don’t you understand that one choice is always going to be better than the other choice?” I always rejected the sentiment behind all of those statements and questions. My position was and remains the same: I will not vote for a candidate who does not share my values and principles. I’m quite aware of the fact that no candidate is perfect; I’m aware that some allowances and some compromises must be made. My standards should not be viewed as unrealistic nor should the bar be considered too high to reach for a viable Republican candidate. What I expect is that, on the whole, a candidate demonstrate a commitment to truly limiting and reducing the size/scope of government while also protecting and expanding individual/civil liberties. That is why we’re all Republicans, correct? We didn’t just wake up one day, flip a coin, and choose our party based on whether the coin landed on heads/tails. We’re Republicans because the Republican Party is *supposed* to stand for something. It’s supposed to stand for limited-government and individual/constitutional rights. Let’s be clear: John McCain did not and does not believe in limiting government or expanding liberty. Mitt Romney did not believe in limiting government or expanding government. McCain is downright hostile to both while Romney, at best, sought to merely manage the rate of government growth.

There are two viable Republican candidates who have shown a commitment to the aforementioned criteria I laid out in the previous paragraph (one more so than the other.) My choice, as everyone knows, is Rand Paul. Paul has often been criticized by committed libertarians as not being libertarian enough, but Paul has never claimed to be a strict libertarian. He has been criticized for not being conservative enough (more on that later). Paul more closely matches my politics than any other major Republican since, perhaps, Barry Goldwater. Nobody should mistake Paul as being anything other than a conservative -- Paul is decidedly conservative with a libertarian streak. He’s libertarian in precisely those areas that will appeal to a greater constituency than the traditional Republican base, and this is an area where Paul has a definite edge over Cruz. Paul has made real efforts over his Senate term to reach out to those constituencies that normally have little or no contact with the Republican Party, namely, the tech industry and black community.

There have been criticisms of Paul from so-called conservatives who think he is too soft on foreign policy (he’s actually too hardline for my tastes), too weak on national security issues, and too permissive with drug policy. These criticisms belie the fact that those individuals fail to understand the nature of conservatism. Mainstream (neoconservative) foreign policy that is the dominant position of the Republican Party is the deformed and monstrous offspring of progressive foreign policy -- it is a bizarre and dangerous combination of Wilsonianism and Trotskyism. It is entirely alien to conservatism save the last 10+ years that saw the rise of its popularity to such an extent that it redefined the meaning of conservative foreign policy. Paul advocates a more traditional conservative view of conservatism that ensures the nation is prepared to defend itself, non-interventionism, and peaceful trade and negotiations even with nations that may be viewed viewed as hostile. Paul maintains, correctly, that any military action must be accompanied by Congressional authorization. Paul also maintains that the 4th Amendment is vital and one of the cornerstones of our Republic. Conservatism is about protecting and maintaining our Constitution, and our traditional/founding principles of liberty. Paul’s opposition to mass government snooping and surveillance on private information does precisely that -- it conserves the integrity of our Constitution and founding principles. Lastly, Paul has fought to point out the injustice of our nation’s drug laws and how it has turned such a large portion of our population into criminals making society even less safe. Criminal justice reform and a grand re-examination of our ‘drug war’ ought to be principles conservatives are in the street demanding. Furthermore, it’s a state issue that ought to be decided by the various state legislatures as opposed to the Federal government mandating a uniform policy upon all.
With all of that, I get messages from friends and family pointing to this or that and asking whether I agree with Paul and how I can still support him in lieu of that comment/statement. Sometimes I agree with Paul; sometimes I disagree with Paul. That takes us back to my 1st paragraph when I pointed out that I have never expected a candidate to be perfect. People criticize me for being too uncompromising and looking for the ‘perfect candidate’ while others expect me to abandon a candidate because I disagree with them on this issue or that issue. Which should it be? For my part, I will continue to support candidates that (on the whole) stand on the side of liberty. That isn’t to say that Paul will never do anything to lose my support -- he very well might! But no disagreement I have yet had with Paul rises to the level of abandoning the best chance the Republican Party has ever had to expand its base, the best chance to limit the size and scope of government, the best chance to expand individual liberty, and the best chance to move toward a more rational and pragmatic foreign policy.

That’s why I continue to ‪#‎StandWithRand‬

[olevetonahill]

Will it be OK if I wait to see who all is going to run?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Will it be OK if I wait to see who all is going to run?If you(anyone) vote in the R primary, just don't pick a squish like Jeb, Christie or Lindsay Graham(McCain said Graham will run)...But if a squish somehow gets the nomination, for godssakes hold your nose and vote for him/her over the monumental catastrophe on the d side.

[olevetonahill]

If you(anyone) vote in the R primary, just don't pick a squish like Jeb, Christie or Lindsay Graham(McCain said Graham will run)...But if a squish somehow gets the nomination, for godssakes hold your nose and vote for him/her over the monumental catastrophe on the d side.

Ima Reg Dem , Yet Ill vote for WHO i think is Best for THIS country! That be ok with Yall?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Unsolicited advice is commonly given on this forum.

[olevetonahill]

Unsolicited advice is commonly given on this forum.

:drunk:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

:drunk:Wait!...what? It' NOT EVEN FRIDAY OR SATURDAY NIGHT!

[olevetonahill]

Wait!...what? It' NOT EVEN FRIDAY OR SATURDAY NIGHT!

Did I ever need a specific day? :drunk:
I will say this as a reg, Dem Im looking at Rand strong right now way over the BC broad

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

God bless America!

BC broad?

[olevetonahill]

God bless America!

BC broad?

BC Broad = Billary klinton

[okie52]

Still waiting for Rand to define his stance on the illegals.

If it's pathway to citizenship or permanent legal status then I won't vote for him.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

^This

[FaninAma]

My thoughts and feelings on the last two Republican nominees is no secret. People have criticized my politics by saying, “SicEm, don’t you know that no candidate is perfect? You have to compromise.” Or they would tell me, “You have to vote for the lesser of two evils! Don’t you understand that one choice is always going to be better than the other choice?” I always rejected the sentiment behind all of those statements and questions. My position was and remains the same: I will not vote for a candidate who does not share my values and principles. I’m quite aware of the fact that no candidate is perfect; I’m aware that some allowances and some compromises must be made. My standards should not be viewed as unrealistic nor should the bar be considered too high to reach for a viable Republican candidate. What I expect is that, on the whole, a candidate demonstrate a commitment to truly limiting and reducing the size/scope of government while also protecting and expanding individual/civil liberties. That is why we’re all Republicans, correct? We didn’t just wake up one day, flip a coin, and choose our party based on whether the coin landed on heads/tails. We’re Republicans because the Republican Party is *supposed* to stand for something. It’s supposed to stand for limited-government and individual/constitutional rights. Let’s be clear: John McCain did not and does not believe in limiting government or expanding liberty. Mitt Romney did not believe in limiting government or expanding government. McCain is downright hostile to both while Romney, at best, sought to merely manage the rate of government growth.

There are two viable Republican candidates who have shown a commitment to the aforementioned criteria I laid out in the previous paragraph (one more so than the other.) My choice, as everyone knows, is Rand Paul. Paul has often been criticized by committed libertarians as not being libertarian enough, but Paul has never claimed to be a strict libertarian. He has been criticized for not being conservative enough (more on that later). Paul more closely matches my politics than any other major Republican since, perhaps, Barry Goldwater. Nobody should mistake Paul as being anything other than a conservative -- Paul is decidedly conservative with a libertarian streak. He’s libertarian in precisely those areas that will appeal to a greater constituency than the traditional Republican base, and this is an area where Paul has a definite edge over Cruz. Paul has made real efforts over his Senate term to reach out to those constituencies that normally have little or no contact with the Republican Party, namely, the tech industry and black community.

There have been criticisms of Paul from so-called conservatives who think he is too soft on foreign policy (he’s actually too hardline for my tastes), too weak on national security issues, and too permissive with drug policy. These criticisms belie the fact that those individuals fail to understand the nature of conservatism. Mainstream (neoconservative) foreign policy that is the dominant position of the Republican Party is the deformed and monstrous offspring of progressive foreign policy -- it is a bizarre and dangerous combination of Wilsonianism and Trotskyism. It is entirely alien to conservatism save the last 10+ years that saw the rise of its popularity to such an extent that it redefined the meaning of conservative foreign policy. Paul advocates a more traditional conservative view of conservatism that ensures the nation is prepared to defend itself, non-interventionism, and peaceful trade and negotiations even with nations that may be viewed viewed as hostile. Paul maintains, correctly, that any military action must be accompanied by Congressional authorization. Paul also maintains that the 4th Amendment is vital and one of the cornerstones of our Republic. Conservatism is about protecting and maintaining our Constitution, and our traditional/founding principles of liberty. Paul’s opposition to mass government snooping and surveillance on private information does precisely that -- it conserves the integrity of our Constitution and founding principles. Lastly, Paul has fought to point out the injustice of our nation’s drug laws and how it has turned such a large portion of our population into criminals making society even less safe. Criminal justice reform and a grand re-examination of our ‘drug war’ ought to be principles conservatives are in the street demanding. Furthermore, it’s a state issue that ought to be decided by the various state legislatures as opposed to the Federal government mandating a uniform policy upon all.
With all of that, I get messages from friends and family pointing to this or that and asking whether I agree with Paul and how I can still support him in lieu of that comment/statement. Sometimes I agree with Paul; sometimes I disagree with Paul. That takes us back to my 1st paragraph when I pointed out that I have never expected a candidate to be perfect. People criticize me for being too uncompromising and looking for the ‘perfect candidate’ while others expect me to abandon a candidate because I disagree with them on this issue or that issue. Which should it be? For my part, I will continue to support candidates that (on the whole) stand on the side of liberty. That isn’t to say that Paul will never do anything to lose my support -- he very well might! But no disagreement I have yet had with Paul rises to the level of abandoning the best chance the Republican Party has ever had to expand its base, the best chance to limit the size and scope of government, the best chance to expand individual liberty, and the best chance to move toward a more rational and pragmatic foreign policy.

That’s why I continue to ‪#‎StandWithRand‬

Sent a contribution to his election committee yesterday. He is more of an anti-Wall Street leader than Elizabeth Warren will ever think(or dare) of being.

[badger]

If you want to be guaranteed to never have your candidate compromise, always agree with you and perfectly represent your thoughts, beliefs and interests... vote for yourself. Go all Dennis Kucinich and run for president :P

Otherwise, acknowledge that no candidate is perfect. Lesser of two evils might be taking things too far, but one that will lead and represent the U.S well is good enough for me

I have no idea who that will be whenever Oklahoma's super duper blooper tuesday primary will be... but I'm prepared for our candidate to get rejected by the rest of the country again :D:D:D

Who knows? Maybe we'll be the straw that breaks the candidate's candidacy once again in 2016. John Edwards quit the day after he visit Tulsa and Joe Lieberman's coffee mornings in Oklahoma did nothing for his presidential bid... so both opted out thanks to the Sooner State.

BOOMER!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ted Cruz recently raised $31 million.(despite the harrassment by the Leftists and RINOS)

[rock on sooner]

Don't think Edwards' visit to OK had as much to do with his quitting
as Rielle Hunter did. Lieberman needed more "cream" for his coffee
than OK had in stock. The Pub lineup is far from complete and, in
some cases, the clowns are already in IA....Trump spent all day yesterday
warning the press to not damage his airplane and talking to Simpson
college kids about his global dealmaking...rilly, he did and Santorum
just expended hot air. Paul is supposed to be here Friday and Cruz
will be back soon. Funny, three, count 'em three first term Pub senators
have either declared or getting ready to do it and I haven't heard a
peep from anyone, either side, about not enough experience..wonder
why that is?

[Serenity Now]

Trump, Cruz, Palin....Are they designed to make the Rand's of the world more palatable to the moderates of the world?

[hawaii 5-0]

I'll give Rand a look.

I prefer Moderates over extremists.


5-0

[BoulderSooner79]

Trump, Cruz, Palin....Are they designed to make the Rand's of the world more palatable to the moderates of the world?

It's working. But I have to give Cruz props for standing up in front of a group of corn farmers and telling them their government subsidy for corn ethanol would go away if he were elected. I don't like much of anything else he has said, but credit where credit due.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Trump is a VERY dark horse. More like an infinitessimally small chance. Lindsay Graham as well.

[okie52]

Not that Rand is necessarily in this category but what is moderate about making citizens of 11,000,000 illegals? What is moderate about granting access to government benefits to these these future citizens that will be largely shouldered by the US taxpayers?

Why isn't giving illegals that are employed temporary legal status with all costs being paid by their employers the "moderate" approach?

[SoonerProphet]

It's working. But I have to give Cruz props for standing up in front of a group of corn farmers and telling them their government subsidy for corn ethanol would go away if he were elected. I don't like much of anything else he has said, but credit where credit due.

Truth, ol Scott Walker back pedaled so fast on corn subsidies it was a joke, thought that guy was tough and could stand up to people.

[okie52]

It's working. But I have to give Cruz props for standing up in front of a group of corn farmers and telling them their government subsidy for corn ethanol would go away if he were elected. I don't like much of anything else he has said, but credit where credit due.

Haven't seen anyone else be that ballsy in the last decade or two in Iowa.

[TAFBSooner]

Sent a contribution to his election committee yesterday. He is more of an anti-Wall Street leader than Elizabeth Warren will ever think(or dare) of being.

I found this (http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-pauls-campaign-announcement-began-with-this-anti-wall-street-country-song-2015-4) which is encouraging:

What has he done to rein in Wall Street?

[rock on sooner]

I'm guessing that Cruz will walk back several of his statements if
his campaign gains any traction. Rand is certainly showing his
thin skin, when questioned about some of his earlier statements/
positions....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm guessing that Cruz will walk back several of his statements if
his campaign gains any traction. Rand is certainly showing his
thin skin, when questioned about some of his earlier statements/
positions....haha YOU WISH both those guys could get taken out..

[rock on sooner]

haha YOU WISH both those guys could get taken out..

Well, hold onto yourself but Rand makes some sense with what he
says now...earlier stuff was not so good. Cruz should go back to
TX and sleep with a cactus.....

[badger]

Vote Rick Perry-Craig James 2016! CJK5H, but RPK5H too ;)

[SicEmBaylor]

RPK5H too ;)

Eh, only if they were male prostitutes. Gov. Cabana Boy plays for the other team.

[Eielson]

Trump, Cruz, Palin....Are they designed to make the Rand's of the world more palatable to the moderates of the world?

Vermin Supreme formally announced he's running as a Democrat.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Vermin Supreme whodat?

[Eielson]

whodat?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Vermin Supreme formally announced he's running as a Democrat.Too bad. He should go 3rd party

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah, watch this video. How can anyone possibly not want this guy as President of the United States.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4534762/senator-rand-paul-new-hampshire-republican-leadership-summit

[olevetonahill]

Yeah, watch this video. How can anyone possibly not want this guy as President of the United States.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4534762/senator-rand-paul-new-hampshire-republican-leadership-summit

Give me a condensed version I aint watchin 35 minutes of any of em at this point.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Give me a condensed version I aint watchin 35 minutes of any of em at this point.

He's on the stump in New Hampshah. Talks about a lot of different issues.

[olevetonahill]

He's on the stump in New Hampshah. Talks about a lot of different issues.

I wont get serious about listening to any of em until it starts winding down towards the end and its gettin close to voting time.
I ain got a say much in who runs but I do have one little vote to say who wins LOL

[Eielson]

Give me a condensed version I aint watchin 35 minutes of any of em at this point.

How condensed? A sentence?

Protect all the amendments (not just the second), and Hilary is stupid.

[olevetonahill]

How condensed? A sentence?

Protect all the amendments (not just the second), and Hilary is stupid.

we need the 1st 2 to protect the rest and I agree.

[SicEmBaylor]

https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/11078161_994550303903207_1209511195958753913_n.jpg ?oh=f2be67576c45e1ab51fe571ddd22201a&oe=55E1E4C6

[BoulderSooner79]

https://scontent-ord.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/11078161_994550303903207_1209511195958753913_n.jpg ?oh=f2be67576c45e1ab51fe571ddd22201a&oe=55E1E4C6

Show me where he is refusing money from the Koch brothers and I'll vote for him.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Show me where he is refusing money from the Koch brothers and I'll vote for him.

Yet, you're okay with Soros funding Hillary?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yet, you're okay with Soros funding Hillary?Hillry is SO corrupt, in so many ways, but it's okay, since she's a democrat.

[SicEmBaylor]

Show me where he is refusing money from the Koch brothers and I'll vote for him.

The Koch Brothers are nothing more than strawmen constructed by the left as some sort of right-wing boogeymen. What they are doing is absolutely no different than what the wealthy on the left are doing -- the only difference is the dollar amount and, arguably, the zeal.

[dwarthog]

The Koch Brothers are nothing more than strawmen constructed by the left as some sort of right-wing boogeymen. What they are doing is absolutely no different than what the wealthy on the left are doing -- the only difference is the dollar amount and, arguably, the zeal.

The left does like it's boogeymen.

Their favorites are the ones that can be held up as mean and fearsome but have no ability to fight back, at least it was that way until Citizen United.

[BoulderSooner79]

Yet, you're okay with Soros funding Hillary?

Where did you see me say that? My point is they are *all* in someone's pocket regardless of some poster with patriot verse stamped across it. Folks that get all balled up in this left vs. right, us vs. them game are just fools being led around by the nose.

[BoulderSooner79]

The Koch Brothers are nothing more than strawmen constructed by the left as some sort of right-wing boogeymen. What they are doing is absolutely no different than what the wealthy on the left are doing -- the only difference is the dollar amount and, arguably, the zeal.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. The big money on both sides are the ones calling the shots.

[SicEmBaylor]

I normally cringe like hell when kids talk about politics (except me when I was that age and younger because I was brilliant), but this kid is pretty exceptional. Good for him! An articulate, intelligent, and independent thinker at his age is a beautiful thing to see. Kids like this make me feel better about the future of the Republic.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgfrRs_CR5U

[SicEmBaylor]

For those of you concerned about Paul's immigration policy:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-you-cant-have-open-borders-and-a-welfare-state/article/2564187

[olevetonahill]

For those of you concerned about Paul's immigration policy:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-you-cant-have-open-borders-and-a-welfare-state/article/2564187

Sic , every dayum Politician is gonna lie thru their teeth. I aint jumpin on any bandwagon this early in the game. Ima wait an see who get the Nom. on both sides then decide.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic , every dayum Politician is gonna lie thru their teeth. I aint jumpin on any bandwagon this early in the game. Ima wait an see who get the Nom. on both sides then decide.

You aren't going to vote in the primary? And since I highly doubt you'll end up voting for the Democrat nominee, what you're really telling me is "I'm not going to vote until the general election and then I'll just vote for anyone who has an (R) next to their name."

[yermom]

Yeah but it's the primaries where the choose the giant ****** that will run against the turd sandwich

We all lose before the general election even starts

[yermom]

That was to Vet, not you Frosty :)

[olevetonahill]

You aren't going to vote in the primary? And since I highly doubt you'll end up voting for the Democrat nominee, what you're really telling me is "I'm not going to vote until the general election and then I'll just vote for anyone who has an (R) next to their name."

Ima reg Dem Dummy!
Cant vote in the Primary

[olevetonahill]

Yeah but it's the primaries where the choose the giant ****** that will run against the turd sandwich

We all lose before the general election even starts

I dont giva a **** if its an R or a D Like I said Ima registerd Dem, so I couldnt vote in the R primarys
when it comes to the general election i WILL decide who I think is best at the time.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

For those of you concerned about Paul's immigration policy:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-you-cant-have-open-borders-and-a-welfare-state/article/2564187

What does "secure the border" mean? Presently, 1 million people enter the U.S. each day through its 325 ports of entry. If we secure the border, about how many would enter each day?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Walker

[Turd_Ferguson]

What does "secure the border" mean? Presently, 1 million people enter the U.S. each day through its 325 ports of entry. If we secure the border, about how many would enter each day?

Don't know why you don't just say what you mean instead of acting like a dip****.

[Serenity Now]

Don't know why you don't just say what you mean instead of acting like a dip****.

I think the point of the post was to inquire as to what rand Paul meant. But, nice dip**** comment.

[yermom]

Walker

is Chuck Norris running?

[Turd_Ferguson]

I think the point of the post was to inquire as to what rand Paul meant. But, nice dip**** comment.

Yeah, sure. Juan knows securing the boarder has nothing to do with the LEGAL ports of entry.

[yermom]

So what are the dem talking points against Paul?

I'm sure the neocon ones are BS :)

[SicEmBaylor]

So what are the dem talking points against Paul?

I'm sure the neocon ones are BS :)

They're keeping their powder dry at the moment, by and large, but what little has come out of their camp has been along the lines of "Paul is just the same typical failed Republican that America has already seen." Which isn't very imaginative. You can say a lot of things about Paul, but 'typical Republican' is assuredly not one of them.

Still, I can understand their reticence to go on the offensive at this point. It really wouldn't be prudent for them to start going after the GOP field. Better to stay positive and weight for the GOP contenders to cannibalize themselves before moving in to finish them off.

[okie52]

What does "secure the border" mean? Presently, 1 million people enter the U.S. each day through its 325 ports of entry. If we secure the border, about how many would enter each day?

Are the illegals entering the US illegally through our ports of entry?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Are the illegals entering the US illegally through our ports of entry?haha. Whatever Beary wants...Beary gets!?!?

[okie52]

Yeah, sure. Juan knows securing the boarder has nothing to do with the LEGAL ports of entry.

Missed this post Turd...

Exactly.

[okie52]

haha. Whatever Beary wants...Beary gets!?!?

These days that's probably true...just walk up to a ICE official and tell him you are seeking asylum and you'll given years of residency just waiting on the legal process.

[olevetonahill]

Like Ive said I dont pay much tention in the early goings But I have fingered out why Sic is so Up on Rand LOL

Look where Rand went to skool = Alma mater Baylor University (no degree)

Much like out little hero of Politics Sic. Baylor (No degree)
They Twinkies Cept rand might be a tad better lookin :drunk:

[Eielson]

They're keeping their powder dry at the moment, by and large, but what little has come out of their camp has been along the lines of "Paul is just the same typical failed Republican that America has already seen." Which isn't very imaginative. You can say a lot of things about Paul, but 'typical Republican' is assuredly not one of them.

Still, I can understand their reticence to go on the offensive at this point. It really wouldn't be prudent for them to start going after the GOP field. Better to stay positive and weight for the GOP contenders to cannibalize themselves before moving in to finish them off.

From a strategic standpoint, it seems like it would be a poor decision to go after a guy like Rand. I'm not sure that Rand will go the distance, but if somebody else does, I'd imagine Rand leaves them at least limping, if not worse.

[rock on sooner]

As someone has already posted, no reason for Dems, MSM, Indies or
anyone else to take aim at any Pub till after the circular firing squad
that will surely come in the myriad number of debates...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

As someone has already posted, no reason for Dems, MSM, Indies or
anyone else to take aim at any Pub till after the circular firing squad
that will surely come in the myriad number of debates...The "impartial" moderators will see to that.

[Turd_Ferguson]

The "impartial" moderators will see to that.

Well, Snuffolouphagus ain't goin to. Maybe they can get Candy lov'n Crowley in there...

[SicEmBaylor]

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/l/t1.0-9/11393166_10204308842268859_894732935544242745_n.jp g?oh=a4198b43052aea076c6228e84f63b356&oe=5606C5B1

[Turd_Ferguson]

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/l/t1.0-9/11393166_10204308842268859_894732935544242745_n.jp g?oh=a4198b43052aea076c6228e84f63b356&oe=5606C5B1

The problem is, "lead us back to greatness", to most of the minority's, means removing the government teat out of their mouths. The pu$$y a$$ libs have pandered to the welfare/SSI crowd enough to swing the vote I fear. I will probably vote for Rand, but I'm afraid it's too little, too late. I hope not...

[SoonerorLater]

Rand would be a good choice though not the best. He has been able to pick up some political tailwind from his dad without that underlying 'nut job' innuendo that has been leveled at Ron Paul.

[Eielson]

Rand would be a good choice though not the best. He has been able to pick up some political tailwind from his dad without that underlying 'nut job' innuendo that has been leveled at Ron Paul.

Who is better?

[SoonerorLater]

Who is better?

Bobby Jindal or Ben Carson IMO though Rand Paul wouldn't be far behind. I can't shake a bit of lingering doubt that Rand Paul is a politician masquerading as a conservative ideologue.

[SicEmBaylor]

Bobby Jindal or Ben Carson IMO though Rand Paul wouldn't be far behind. I can't shake a bit of lingering doubt that Rand Paul is a politician masquerading as a conservative ideologue.

Bobby Jindal has done a disastrous job at managing Louisiana's finances, and Ben Carson has been all over the map with his positions repeatedly making questionable statements only to pull back and re-position. At any given time, he has called for both greater gun control and more government involvement in healthcare. Carson isn't even close to ready for prime time.

[SicEmBaylor]

Rand would be a good choice though not the best. He has been able to pick up some political tailwind from his dad without that underlying 'nut job' innuendo that has been leveled at Ron Paul.

He hasn't had much of a tailwind at all from his dad since his dad's real core base has proven to be very distrustful of Rand. They're just now starting to come around a little bit, but that's a tough row to hoe.

[Eielson]

I think Ben wants be Rand's VP.

[SoonerorLater]

Bobby Jindal has done a disastrous job at managing Louisiana's finances, and Ben Carson has been all over the map with his positions repeatedly making questionable statements only to pull back and re-position. At any given time, he has called for both greater gun control and more government involvement in healthcare. Carson isn't even close to ready for prime time.

No he hasn't done a disastrous job. I doubt Votaire could make sense of Louisiana finances. Louisiana's problems come primarily from declining oil revenue and an unwillingness to raises taxes. This is as it should be. Revenues decrease, so should spending. I actually look at this as a plus for Jindal.

Rand Paul hasn't had executive experience, Jindal has. Legislators with no executive experience are unprepared for the responsibilities of the Chief Executive.

[SicEmBaylor]

Rand Paul hasn't had executive experience, Jindal has. Legislators with no executive experience are unprepared for the responsibilities of the Chief Executive.

Even if that were the case, which it isn't, why Ben Carson ahead of Paul? Ben Carson has 'zero' political experience.

This idea that Presidents need prior executive experience to be a good President is nonsense claptrap that's the result of those who push for an imperial-style presidency. We've had disastrous Presidents with prior executive experience, and we've had very effective presidents with absolutely no prior executive experience.

Here's a list of Presidents with no prior executive experience that ended up being either very effective or highly-lauded/popular presidents:

*Nixon
*LBJ
*Kennedy
*Ike
*Truman
*Taft
*Garfield
*Grant
*Lincoln
*Jackson
*Madison
*Adams
*Washington

On the other hand...

Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were both former governors.
-----------------------------------

"Executive experience" is not a pre-requisite for understanding the Constitution, the Presidential oath of office, and the good judgement to properly execute the laws of the United States consistent with that oath and understanding of the Constitution. I'll take those qualities over a mediocre governor every single day of the week.

[champions77]

Even if that were the case, which it isn't, why Ben Carson ahead of Paul? Ben Carson has 'zero' political experience.

This idea that Presidents need prior executive experience to be a good President is nonsense claptrap that's the result of those who push for an imperial-style presidency. We've had disastrous Presidents with prior executive experience, and we've had very effective presidents with absolutely no prior executive experience.

Here's a list of Presidents with no prior executive experience that ended up being either very effective or highly-lauded/popular presidents:

*Nixon
*LBJ
*Kennedy
*Ike
*Truman
*Taft
*Garfield
*Grant
*Lincoln
*Jackson
*Madison
*Adams
*Washington

On the other hand...

Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush were both former governors.
-----------------------------------

"Executive experience" is not a pre-requisite for understanding the Constitution, the Presidential oath of office, and the good judgement to properly execute the laws of the United States consistent with that oath and understanding of the Constitution. I'll take those qualities over a mediocre governor every single day of the week.

LBJ on this list? He Governed during a time where this country was more divided than it had been since the Civil War. Only BHO has been worse about dividing this country, and as we all know, he has gone out of his way to do so. Can't tell you the last time anyone referred to LBJ as being "very effective" or "highly lauded" unless the efficiency he showed in getting the "Great Society" launched. Still don't see much "great" in it.

I agree with Paul on a lot of what he stands for and will support him over the Socialist Party candidate with no reservations. I especially like him having the gonads to go into the black communities with his message. A message that has not been communicated to those communities in the past by Republicans. I think there is some potential to move some of those people. All he has to do is ask them to look around their communities and ask themselves "is this as good as it gets?" and persuade them that the Democratic social programs create a very low ceiling for people, destroying the virtues of self-reliance and personal responsibility along the way, the very virtues that ALL successful people possess. Very few of them see any upside to their lives. Makes them angry, combative, unsociable. Of course vouchers would give them a way out of the lousy inner city schools. Democrats choose the labor unions OVER the voucher programs. And they care about blacks, or is it the votes they care about?

On foreign policy, I get his reluctance to jump into any armed conflict around the world, and him being much more selective when we do. Lord everyone knows we have put our soldiers in harms way more often that we should have, hindsight tells us that. I just think there is a fine line between having a policy that deploys US troops less frequently and with more forethought, and the perception that might give to some of our adversaries. Look no farther than the spineless weenie we have in the Oval Office today, and see the perception that he projected, cancelling the Eastern Europe missile shield that was once promised to them, sashaying around the world apologizing to anyone and everyone that we might have offended some way at some time, drawing red lines in the sand, reducing our military capability, new weapons systems, etc. All of this has sent a signal to our enemies of weakness. If Paul is not careful, I believe he might send them the same signal.

[TAFBSooner]

, sashaying around the world apologizing to anyone and everyone that we might have offended some way at some time,

We should not have overthrown the elected Iranian prime minister in 1953. I doubt that an apology makes up for that. Instead of apologizing, don't frack with other countries' governments.



(That's "frack" in the Battlestar Galactica meaning of the word.)