Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Rand Paul on 2016: ‘We’re Thinking About It’



What he is likely really thinking about is what limited government, small government positions he will have to throw under the bus to get to 50% plus 1.

12 comments:

  1. I'm on this site because of Tom Woods... I'm getting more than irritated with the constant rant on everything Rand Paul. We get it,, he isn't Ron,, and not libertarian enough for you. You have a better pick for POTUS in 2016,? put up or shut up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who cares who brought you here? If you don't want to be irritated with what you read here, perhaps you shouldn't come here and read.

      Delete
    2. (yawn) If you call yourself a real libertarian you would see that Rand wants to have it both ways so he makes conservatives and libertarians happy. Any true libertarian can see that this cant happen without giving in to statism. In Rands case it's conservative statism and for libertarians any type of statism. I will also echo Mic's comments

      Delete
    3. Dear Anonymous

      I think the writers at Economic Policy Journal choose to focus on Rand Paul because of the danger he poses to the liberty movement. He is dangerous, because like Ronald Reagan he has the ability to lead people astray.

      Rand wants to make the boot on our necks more efficient, a public/private partnership, immersed in myth, and answering only to the whistle of it's master.

      Delete
    4. He's not a libertarian PERIOD.

      Pick a better POTUS? How about NO?
      People who think politics will set us free are stupid.

      Delete
    5. Anon, you're a fucking idiot. Can't you read?

      Delete
    6. Tony, you hit the damn nail on the head! Politics is for losers. NOTHING good will come of it. Why people waste their time on that shit is beyond me.

      Delete
    7. You want a name, ok, how about Judge Andrew Napolitano? I can't think of anyone more like Ron Paul in both his integrity and his public and libertarian credentials.

      The reason this site goes after Rand is because he has the public image of libertarian but frequently acts contrary to this, so sites like EPJ are doing important work pointing out the difference.

      Delete
  2. Anon, you're on this site because you choose to be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm sorry,, let me clarify,, I follow Tom Woods writing,, I respect his appraisal of issues,,, I don't hear him ranting about Rand Pauls efforts to bring some libertarian into the GOP.. and I ask again.. who you got!? and was Ron Paul good enough for you? he had some pretty out there ideas on being Pro Life?? and was a solid Christian.. oooo.. scary stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To answer your rant a second time.

      You're posing a false dilemma fallacy.
      Not choosing Rand doesn't mean choosing someone else.
      That's the closed minded thinking a politician-worshipper would come up with.

      We got NOBODY because we need NOBODY. And if anyone is going to be presented as if he is on our side, we will continue to chop him down at the ankles EVERY...SINGLE...TIME that his mouth spews statist BS.

      Delete
  4. Sorry, but after reading the transcripts of Rand Paul's foreign policy speech, I'm finally done with Rand Paul, although I was very disappointed with him when he announced his support for Mittens Romney back in June. While I respect Rand Paul's opposition to the NDAA and the Federal Reserve, I cannot support any politician who supports any form of military interventionism that violates the non-aggression principle whatsoever. America should not intervene in the affairs of any other nation whatsoever, period. And America should not go to war unless another country directly and clearly threatens us or attacks us, period. No exceptions, no excuses. Besides, doesn't Rand Paul know that "war is the health of the state"?

    While I share the sentiments with many posters that electoral politics is hopeless, I also believe that the Libertarian Party should run somebody who is committed to a non-interventionist foreign policy. I also applaud this blog's efforts in exposing Rand Paul as the interventionist that he is. An interventionist like Rand Paul does not deserve to carry the torch of the libertarian movement that Ron Paul has carried, even though Rand Paul is Ron Paul's son. It shows that although the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, sometimes a squirrel could grab that apple and move it far from the tree.

    ReplyDelete