rand paul

[FUZO]

this guy is the son of ron paul and clearly way differentn his dad but I like this guy and I hope he wins kentucky

http://www.randpaul2010.com/

[JsJs24]

Re: rand paul

Rand is actually very similar to his dad, but stronger in his Republican views. He is still a Libertarian in many ways; for instance, his stance on the Civil Rights Act.

I support Rand Paul and imagine he will win. He has the full support of the Tea Party, which is proving to make all the difference. Here in NV we the Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle won over Sue Lowden, whom many thought would win.

Ron Paul and Rand Paul for President and Vice President in that order and this country would rid itself of a lot of problems. I'm dreaming but it would be nice.

[JsJs24]

Re: rand paul

Son of a bi**h! I just donated to Paul's campaign and was trying to take a picture of my name on there but my damn camera was not ready. Oh well. Thanks for putting the link up Fuzo.

[horsepwr]

Re: rand paul

I would bet my dollar that the Paul family is a family of proper minded republicans. Following doc/daddy Paul's lead of very well rooted republicanism.

[JsJs24]

Re: rand paul

I would bet my dollar that the Paul family is a family of proper minded republicans. Following doc/daddy Paul's lead of very well rooted republicanism.

Ron and Rand are both very firm believers in the Constitution, which I believe is why they hold so many Libertarian views. They are Republicans but believe in a smaller role for government and more freedom for individuals than most Republicans do.

[horsepwr]

Re: rand paul

indeed. They are republicans. Instead of just politicians with an (R), which the government is full of. To believe in The Constitution, as Ron and Rand Paul do, is to believe in the republicanism on which the document is based. This whole-hearted belief produces whole-hearted republicans such as the Pauls.

Can you feel it guys?..This is good stuff!!! People are figuring it out. They're waking up, and they want their damn liberties back.

[JsJs24]

Re: rand paul

indeed. They are republicans. Instead of just politicians with an (R), which the government is full of. To believe in The Constitution, as Ron and Rand Paul do, is to believe in the republicanism on which the document is based. This whole-hearted belief produces whole-hearted republicans such as the Pauls.

Can you feel it guys?..This is good stuff!!! People are figuring it out. They're waking up, and they want their damn liberties back.

As I said, they are Republicans with a strong lean towards Libertarian views, more so for Ron Paul, but also for Rand Paul. The founders' views were more inline with Libertarian viewpoints than what Republicans hold today. Republicans typically favor smaller government than the Democratic Party but still support larger government roles in the private sector so long as it supports their views. The founders favored limited government in the most extreme sense, and would not be associated with the Republican or Democrat Party if alive today. Rand Paul is hopefully going to win the election in his locale and deliver the message of smaller government to the great people of our nation.

[horsepwr]

Re: rand paul

I completely understand what you're saying Jsjs. I understand that you are a strong supporter of the libertarian party movement. That's all good and great. I've noticed that your views are in line with mine, as far as I can tell thus far. The hypothetical statement about our Founding Fathers is only that. I agree that they wouldn't be associated with either of the primary parties of today. I doubt they would be associated with any party. They were individualist. Constitutionalist. They faught hard, and developed a governing system. The government they created was a Republic. This made them Republicans by the absolute purest definition. Republicans. Their documentation for their Republican government, The Constitution, is based on republicanism. This made them Republicans. Republicans they were then. Republicans, they would be now. Not to be confused with some party that can't decipher their as from a hole in the ground. Regardless of the name of the party. You can't tell who's who, or what's what in any party, including the libertarian party. I hear one thing from you about the libertarian party, and a completely different ideology from someone else that's of the libertarian party. So the whole 'party' this and that is too unstable for someone that is stable in their beliefs. Hence individualism. No need to latch on to a party. One ideology is permanent. That's the republicanism which this country was based on. I'm so tired of people adjusting, and even completely changing the meanings of terms for their agenda. No-one does this better than leftist. Notice I didn't call them "liberals". Because they are anything but liberal. So, I'm not even going to take part in the name-game, and playing with meanings of words. Our founding fathers created a Republican governing system. The U.S. Constitution is based on republicanism. Therefore, I am naturally a Republican, in support of The Republic for which Old Glory represents. Just as our founding fathers were Republicans.
republicanism: anti-monarchy, anti-democracy; individualism, individual liberty and rights
Republicanism didn't begin with our founding fathers. They just brought it here, and made it exclusive rule. They were the 1st American Republicans. I am a Republican.

[JsJs24]

Re: rand paul

I completely understand what you're saying Jsjs. I understand that you are a strong supporter of the libertarian party movement. That's all good and great. I've noticed that your views are in line with mine, as far as I can tell thus far. The hypothetical statement about our Founding Fathers is only that. I agree that they wouldn't be associated with either of the primary parties of today. I doubt they would be associated with any party. They were individualist. Constitutionalist. They faught hard, and developed a governing system. The government they created was a Republic. This made them Republicans by the absolute purest definition. Republicans. Their documentation for their Republican government, The Constitution, is based on republicanism. This made them Republicans. Republicans they were then. Republicans, they would be now. Not to be confused with some party that can't decipher their as from a hole in the ground. Regardless of the name of the party. You can't tell who's who, or what's what in any party, including the libertarian party. I hear one thing from you about the libertarian party, and a completely different ideology from someone else that's of the libertarian party. So the whole 'party' this and that is too unstable for someone that is stable in their beliefs. Hence individualism. No need to latch on to a party. One ideology is permanent. That's the republicanism which this country was based on. I'm so tired of people adjusting, and even completely changing the meanings of terms for their agenda. No-one does this better than leftist. Notice I didn't call them "liberals". Because they are anything but liberal. So, I'm not even going to take part in the name-game, and playing with meanings of words. Our founding fathers created a Republican governing system. The U.S. Constitution is based on republicanism. Therefore, I am naturally a Republican, in support of The Republic for which Old Glory represents. Just as our founding fathers were Republicans.
republicanism: anti-monarchy, anti-democracy; individualism, individual liberty and rights
Republicanism didn't begin with our founding fathers. They just brought it here, and made it exclusive rule. They were the 1st American Republicans. I am a Republican.

You hit it perfectly. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement. The founders were indeed Republicans by that view, but still would not be associated with the party the way it is today. My views are inline with the true Republican form of government so long as government exists. But if I had my choice I would rather see a true free market where everything is done by the private sector. I have lost my confidence in the government to do anything right and more so in their ability to limit their size and power. You are also right that Libertarians strongly differ in their views. I am leaning towards the anarcho-capitalist view that many of the Austrian Economists held. Basically, a true free market under capitalism. I do not like assigning myself to a party but the Libertarian Party, those who hold more conservative views and not radical by any means, seems to fit me best. But I am an individualist, and despise collectivism. That is what it all boils down to, collectivism vs individualism. You and I are both individualists for sure, and we obviously do not support collectivism. And I agree with Republicans the majority of the time, but never agree with Democrats, especially with their radical collectivist views today. As far as the founders are concerned, I am a proud supporter of their views and methods of governing.

My apology for missing these critical points on my former post. You summed it up perfectly. You and I have had an in-depth conversation before on politics and I think its safe to say we are very close in our views, which tend to go along with the true Republican form of government that our founders installed.

[horsepwr]

Re: rand paul

true that