Rand Paul Is Looking Like Our Ticket Out Of This Mess And The Left Knows It

[tb-av]

Montanadave-
Ill simply say, compared to todays population, todays problems,...Id go back to 40 years ago RIGHT NOW. Was it perfect? Hell no. The racial divide back then was horrible. There isn't one person who was alive then, that can say we as a nation have improved and become more "united". Its simply not true.

I agree, I was there. I have a vivid memory of my cousin and aunt sitting at her kitchen as she was defending Nixon saying he wasn't lying. The whole race deal depended on who you hung around with and perhaps where you lived but I have seen little change regarding me personally being able to get along with other races or colors, black, various Asian, whatever... but the world as a whole does seem more "cautious"... I suppose part of that is 911... I mean I saw people that "looked like the guys that did this" become physically ill with fear and concern... and then everyone that wasn't a 'whitey" would put a flag on their mailbox as to say... I'm one of you guys.

The whole world and USA deal though is nothing like back then. There was a sense of safety, unity, freedom, that simply does not exist today.... now this is partly due to technology advances and partly due to corrupt humans. There is simply a sense of the possibility of something going really wrong on so many different fronts that didn't exist back then.

Now if you go back 10 years more then you had the "Russia might bomb us" thing going on.... But I remember in my lifetime the first time anything was ever stolen from us and it marked the day we started locking our doors to the house at night. Someone stole a quite off the cloths line directly in line of sight and sound with my parents bedroom. It was a milestone.

There is a situation I have always noticed where older people always say, holy cow, how will the world survive, then the next young generation comes along and it basically causes them no concern. At some point though you have to realize you are indeed boiling a frog and that frog will eventually die. Every generation thinks 'enough is enough' but honestly at some point a little more is going to be too much.

We have been especially hard hit in the USA with 911, financial collapse, a sufficiently corrupt and self-serving representation, a Cloward-Piven President, and a "do for me" population, and an increasingly ignorant population. I wonder how many students today could graduate from school of just 40-50 years ago. It's a recipe for disaster.

[montanadave]

It's called "divide and conquer," fellas. And too many folks are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

[tb-av]

I had thought Paul was more a Libertarian than T Party type. I don't consider them the same. Do others? I'd hope not, but I can see Paul being lumped into the T party as an attempt discredit him. Is he aligned with the T Party types?

I think they are the same in that they both by some means want to make a change. They truly want no more politics as usual.

[tb-av]

It's called "divide and conquer," fellas. And too many folks are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

Tell that to Eric Cantor.

[Straight Shooter]

NO SIR....**** Cantor. Tell it to the families of the slain Border Patrol agent, and the agents getting shot at with ****in 50 cals, tell it to the family of our MURDERED AMBASSADOR, tell it to the families of all the vets who have died, or gotten worse waiting on the goddamned care they were promised when they signed up to serve this country. Tell it to the mom & pop small business that being told they HAVE to cater to people ideals and lifestyles that go against their core values and religious beliefs. Tell it to the people who work 12 HOURS A ****IN NIGHT in a ****in hot ass factory when their tax money goes to support illegals, perverts and every lazy doped up mongoloid who want to spit out baby after baby and get CRADLE TO GRAVE EVERYTHING. Tell it those of us who value what our nation was founded on, one of which is religious freedom, why yesterday a judge says the Ten Commandments must come down.
Tell it to people who matter...cause Cantor, Obama, Clinton and the like DONT GIVE A RATS ASS.

[WillBrink]

I think they are the same in that they both by some means want to make a change. They truly want no more politics as usual.

It seemed that way when the T party first developed, but they seemed to have been co opted by those who don't have the original intent of the T party and have a different agenda. I could be wrong, but that's my sense of it. I can say, my early interest in the T party was lost totally by some of the speakers that had and people they allowed themselves to be aligned and or associated with.

I still think if a handful of Founders came to life, the only party they'd recognize at all as having their original intent, would be the Libertarians. But, they seem to have splintered into a few factions I take it.

Per usual, not all the ideals of the Libertarians would hold up to real world application, but I'd prefer that as a new starting place than anything the current two parties offer.

Until the Repubs get back to their roots (fiscally conservative and socially liberal), per old school Repubs, the party will continue to lose, and continue to be run by a handful of people totally out of touch with reality nor have the nations best interests in mind. The Dems are just hopeless....

If Paul can run on a Repub ticket, and can stand up to all the pressure the far right of the party would heap on him, and does not pick a total train wreck for a running mate per last few candidates (to again appease the far right types), he'd get my vote, and probably many others. That's if again, the GOP "allowed" him to run, and as others have stated here, not likely as he may actually attempt to change things, and we can't have that!

As I said when Obama won his second term, the Dems didn't win as much as the Repubs lost. It was there's to win or lose, and they went down in flames.

[ABNAK]

It seemed that way when the T party first developed, but they seemed to have been co opted by those who don't have the original intent of the T party and have a different agenda. I could be wrong, but that's my sense of it. I can say, my early interest in the T party was lost totally by some of the speakers that had and people they allowed themselves to be aligned and or associated with.

I still think if a handful of Founders came to life, the only party they'd recognize at all as having their original intent, would be the Libertarians. But, they seem to have splintered into a few factions I take it.

Per usual, not all the ideals of the Libertarians would hold up to real world application, but I'd prefer that as a new starting place than anything the current two parties offer.

Until the Repubs get back to their roots (fiscally conservative and socially liberal), per old school Repubs, the party will continue to lose, and continue to be run by a handful of people totally out of touch with reality nor have the nations best interests in mind. The Dems are just hopeless....

If Paul can run on a Repub ticket, and can stand up to all the pressure the far right of the party would heap on him, and does not pick a total train wreck for a running mate per last few candidates (to again appease the far right types), he'd get my vote, and probably many others. That's if again, the GOP "allowed" him to run, and as others have stated here, not likely as he may actually attempt to change things, and we can't have that!

As I said when Obama won his second term, the Dems didn't win as much as the Repubs lost. It was there's to win or lose, and they went down in flames.

You've got to be careful when you suggest being "socially liberal". That includes gun control. I realize you (I assume) don't include that in being socially liberal but these days it's a package deal so to speak. That's why quite a few Dems, while still hitting the "D" lever in the voting booth, may vehemently disagree with their party's platform. You get all the wingnut causes with being socially liberal, some of which you may not personally disagree with but guaranteed someone does: gay marriage, gun control, more welfare handouts, more illegal immigration hand-wringing, no God anywhere/anyplace/anytime, forcing a business to cater to groups they may have a religious or philosophic difference with, decriminalization or legalization of drugs, "press one for English", etc. etc. The list goes on and on.

If I could describe myself, and if there was such an animal, I'd say I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings. While I have no problem with religion, I'm not particularly religious myself and don't like being preached to. I don't care what two consenting adults do in private but I'm not sure the institution of marriage should be altered to reflect today's "all-inclusive" mentality. I find abortion abhorrent but it isn't my pet peeve issue. I do NOT believe in open borders. Our language is ENGLISH. The welfare handouts should be slowly strangled out of existence as much as possible, with exceptions being VERY few and far between. I am totally against random police checkpoints for ANY reason, and in emergency situations (like a missing child) anything "discovered" incidentally cannot be prosecuted. I firmly believe in the 4th Amendment's mention of being specific in why a warrant or search is conducted (no fishing expeditions). I believe in a strong military and the balls to use it when necessary and in an overwhelming, ass-kicking fashion and leaving our enemies destroyed with no help afterwards. -----snip----- So, you see I stray off the purist conservative and libertarian reservations, which is why I described myself as a sort of "combo". I would suspect most people fall into several political categories.

"Socially liberal" has very few points I agree with, as the "package deal" that it comes with runs counter to the vast majority of my views. Sure, I'll rarely agree with a point here and there but not enough to even remotely describe myself as such.

[tb-av]

Until the Repubs get back to their roots (fiscally conservative and socially liberal), per old school Repubs, the party will continue to lose, and continue to be run by a handful of people totally out of touch with reality nor have the nations best interests in mind.

This is exactly what Brat ( defeated Cantor ) says he is. A true Republican... however... he was elected by the TeaParty... I just posted a link to article that describes what happened, the people involved, etc.. in the Cantor thread.

I think more so than figuring out what a good name would be and a list of ideals, everyone needs to pull the emergency brake on the Progressives and Cloward-Piven upsetters.... no matter what... I don't think any TeaParty or Libertarian can make things worse than Obama( including his class of people) or Clinton(including her class of people)