Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Bunning retires: Rand Paul is in the race!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    This video doesn't address RKBA, but Dr. Rand Paul of Bowling Green, like his father, is a SERIOUS adherent to the U.S. Constitution.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbeEuGvU8ZE

    I don't live in Kentucky, but I already donated $50 at http://www.randpaul2010.com/



  2. #2
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    We all need to get behind Rand Paul.

    The other RINO/Neocon candidates can go take a hike. I heard Rand on a local radio show in Lexington, and, like his father, he shredded the current debate on health care apart, exposing the real problems, and real solutions for it.

    We shall see if the Neocons work their tyranny to exclude yet another candidate with real solutions to problems, but won't necessarily work to preserve their own power.

    Rand will be a powerful force in Congress!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Western, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    308

    Post imported post

    Just like his father, eh?

    So, he'll stand on the side of the people, against big government, against wasteful spending, and all of that, right?

    Now, his father added 9.2 million dollars, I think it was, of pork to Obama's much wanted Stimulus package (it may have been the next huge spending deal Obama signed). Then ol' Ron 'stand by the Constitution' Paul votes against it, claiming to be against big spending, even though his pork earmarks are included?

    If Rand is anything like his father, he's as two faced, back stabbing as the rest of the majority of 'em in Washington, DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Open Carry.org Member View Post
    I really disgree with this one! That means that we can have any yahoo running around with a gun with out the proper training. This really scares the hell out of me. Just my two-cents!
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    Joe Schmedlap out there with a loaded weapon thinking he's going to deter crime and he's not even trained to fire his weapon safely just kinda makes my hair on the back of my neck stand up.

  4. #4
    Regular Member mellio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    101

    Post imported post

    catass wrote:
    Just like his father, eh?

    So, he'll stand on the side of the people, against big government, against wasteful spending, and all of that, right?

    Now, his father added 9.2 million dollars, I think it was, of pork to Obama's much wanted Stimulus package (it may have been the next huge spending deal Obama signed). Then ol' Ron 'stand by the Constitution' Paul votes against it, claiming to be against big spending, even though his pork earmarks are included?

    If Rand is anything like his father, he's as two faced, back stabbing as the rest of the majority of 'em in Washington, DC
    Why don't you tell us how you really feel about it!!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    catass: When Ron Paul encounters these ridiculous spending bills in congress, he can do one of four things:

    1)Add pork that would benefit his constituents and vote for the spending bill.

    2)Don't add pork that would benefit his constituents and vote for the spending bill.

    3)Don't add pork that would benefit his constituents and don't vote for the spending bill.

    4)Add pork that would benefit his constituents and don't vote for the spending bill.

    Option 1 would absolutely make him a hypocrite. As he's considered "Dr. No" in the House, he consistently votes "no" on spending bills.

    Option 2 is a ridiculous option.

    Option 3 sounds like a decent choice, but you have to realize that he has been elected to represent his constituents. He pays taxes as well as they do and they need to see some sort of benefit of paying into a system.

    Option 4 is what Ron Paul does. He and arguably most of his constituency are very opposed to government waste and massive spending in general. This is why Ron Paul continually votes "no" on these pork bills. Superficially, it seems contradictory to add to a spending bill and vote against it, but it really makes sense, and this is what I would want from my own congressman if he would ever wise up.

    Ron Paul is a sound conservative who, I believe, is one of the few true conservatives left in Congress.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    catass wrote:
    Just like his father, eh?

    So, he'll stand on the side of the people, against big government, against wasteful spending, and all of that, right?

    Now, his father added 9.2 million dollars, I think it was, of pork to Obama's much wanted Stimulus package (it may have been the next huge spending deal Obama signed). Then ol' Ron 'stand by the Constitution' Paul votes against it, claiming to be against big spending, even though his pork earmarks are included?

    If Rand is anything like his father, he's as two faced, back stabbing as the rest of the majority of 'em in Washington, DC
    Please cite references to what you speak of. All sarcasm aside, if Dr. No is adding pork to spending bills, he deserves to be held to the standard he has set.

    To my knowledge, Ron Paul does not deserve the criticism you speak of, nor is he two faced and back stabbing.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    Here is a link to Paul's voting record on spending, you can see for yourself why they call him Dr. No:
    http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...go.x=9&go.y=14

    As you can see, Dr. Paul is strongly philosophically opposed to government spending.

    Imagine baking a couple cookies and putting them in a cookie jar only to have it completely raided. Dr. Paul is philosophically opposed to "raiding" the budget, but he knows it will be raided and if he doesn't do anything, he won't get his constituency's contribution.

    By adding to a spending bill, he ensures that hid constituency won't be robbed. By voting against a spending bill, he does the only thing he can do to prevent it from happening.

    Ron Paul was one of two congressmen that voted against the Patriot Act (the only Republican).

    My question is, if Ron Paul isn't conservative, then who is?

  8. #8
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    Here is a link to Paul's voting record on spending, you can see for yourself why they call him Dr. No:
    http://www.votesmart.org/voting_cate...=9&go.y=14

    As you can see, Dr. Paul is strongly philosophically opposed to government spending.

    Imagine baking a couple cookies and putting them in a cookie jar only to have it completely raided. Dr. Paul is philosophically opposed to "raiding" the budget, but he knows it will be raided and if he doesn't do anything, he won't get his constituency's contribution.

    By adding to a spending bill, he ensures that hid constituency won't be robbed. By voting against a spending bill, he does the only thing he can do to prevent it from happening.

    Ron Paul was one of two congressmen that voted against the Patriot Act (the only Republican).

    My question is, if Ron Paul isn't conservative, then who is?
    A+

    "Indicate which principles you support concerning gun issues."

    http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296#826

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    Here is a good video of Ron Paul explaining earmarks:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5Yk1imBk

    Basically, Congress is going to pass X number of dollars. If the spending bill passes (which Ron Paul consistently votes down), then the money will be spent. Adding earmarks doesn't add more money, it just redirects money.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Western, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    308

    Post imported post

    mellio wrote:
    catass wrote:
    Just like his father, eh?

    So, he'll stand on the side of the people, against big government, against wasteful spending, and all of that, right?

    Now, his father added 9.2 million dollars, I think it was, of pork to Obama's much wanted Stimulus package (it may have been the next huge spending deal Obama signed). Then ol' Ron 'stand by the Constitution' Paul votes against it, claiming to be against big spending, even though his pork earmarks are included?

    If Rand is anything like his father, he's as two faced, back stabbing as the rest of the majority of 'em in Washington, DC
    Why don't you tell us how you really feel about it!!
    I would, but I don't want to be banned


    Quote Originally Posted by Open Carry.org Member View Post
    I really disgree with this one! That means that we can have any yahoo running around with a gun with out the proper training. This really scares the hell out of me. Just my two-cents!
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    Joe Schmedlap out there with a loaded weapon thinking he's going to deter crime and he's not even trained to fire his weapon safely just kinda makes my hair on the back of my neck stand up.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Western, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    308

    Post imported post

    langzaiguy wrote:
    catass: When Ron Paul encounters these ridiculous spending bills in congress, he can do one of four things:

    1)Add pork that would benefit his constituents and vote for the spending bill.

    2)Don't add pork that would benefit his constituents and vote for the spending bill.

    3)Don't add pork that would benefit his constituents and don't vote for the spending bill.

    4)Add pork that would benefit his constituents and don't vote for the spending bill.

    Option 1 would absolutely make him a hypocrite. As he's considered "Dr. No" in the House, he consistently votes "no" on spending bills.

    Option 2 is a ridiculous option.

    Option 3 sounds like a decent choice, but you have to realize that he has been elected to represent his constituents. He pays taxes as well as they do and they need to see some sort of benefit of paying into a system.

    Option 4 is what Ron Paul does. He and arguably most of his constituency are very opposed to government waste and massive spending in general. This is why Ron Paul continually votes "no" on these pork bills. Superficially, it seems contradictory to add to a spending bill and vote against it, but it really makes sense, and this is what I would want from my own congressman if he would ever wise up.

    Ron Paul is a sound conservative who, I believe, is one of the few true conservatives left in Congress.
    Option 4 isn't hypocritical? To be against spending but adding spending?

    WOAI-TVupdated 5:18 a.m. CT, Mon., March. 2, 2009

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican congressmen derided the massive $410 billion spending bill approved by the House of Representatives last week, but some like Houston-area Congressman Ron Paul contributed to its size. Paul, of Lake Jackson, managed to insert 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million into the bill, leading the Houston delegation, according to an analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally-mandated projects in the bill by the Houston Chronicle. The so-call "omnibus" bill passed the House on a 245-178 vote, with only 16 Republicans in support. It was chock-full of congressmen's pet projects for their districts. Second to Paul in the Houston delegation was Republican Congressman John Culberson, who tallied $63.6 million in earmarks. Democrats were not far behind, with Congressman Al Green and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee adding $50.1 million and $37.6 million respectively. Messages left today by The Associated Press at the offices of Paul, Green and Jackson Lee seeking comment were not immediately returned. Only one Houston-area congressman - Republican Michael McCaul, of Austin - was earmark-free in the House bill. Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Open Carry.org Member View Post
    I really disgree with this one! That means that we can have any yahoo running around with a gun with out the proper training. This really scares the hell out of me. Just my two-cents!
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    Joe Schmedlap out there with a loaded weapon thinking he's going to deter crime and he's not even trained to fire his weapon safely just kinda makes my hair on the back of my neck stand up.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    @catass: Did you watch the video of Ron Paul explaining his stance in his own words? Like I said, it's not hypocritical because he is not voting in support of spending bills. He's doing whatever he can to stop it. When you earmark something, you redirect funds that are already going to be spent. If I'm putting money into a system, and if the money was going to be raided by congressmen, I would want my own Congressmen to redirect the money I've contributed back to my district.

    In a perfect world, spending bills would not pass. The very least we can do is redirect our own money right back to us.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Ron Paul cannot add one single dime to the budget. He doesn't sit on the budget committee.

    Like every other Representative, he submits his requests to the committee. They either add the earmarks, or don't.



  14. #14
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    Ron Paul:

    The system is crooked. Ron Paul could stand on principle and have the federal government steal from his constituents and not recover any of their money, and he'd quickly be voted out of office, and some tax-and-spend congresscritter would replace him. Would that be good?

    In mathematics and engineering, when the analysis is complicated, it often helps to evaluate boundary conditions. What if all of congress voted the way Ron Paul votes on spending issues? They'd all add their earmarks, they'd all vote against the bill, Congress would spend no money and would soon be forced to stop taxing people because they had done the one thing the federal government doesn't do under either party... cut spending.

    Langziaguy did a great job of demonstrating the four options and their consequences. As weird as voting against your own earmarks appears, it is not only not hypocritical, it's the most principled position possible in this corrupt system.



    Rand Paul:

    Rand isn't his father, but he's very close. I've been very active in the effort to get Rand elected. Why? He's light years better than the other candidates. He's the only choice on the second amendment issue, but he's much better than the others on every issue, and not just gun rights.

    I urge you guys to go to RandPaul2010.com and read about Rand. He's not just another politician. Not even close! If you want a good senator, you MUST:

    1) Register Republican by December 31st 2009.

    2) Vote for Rand in the May 18th primary.

    If you don't do those two things, the two parties will pick their guys and come November 2nd 2010, you'll be facing yet another choice between the lesser of two evils and wondering why we can't have good candidates who represent us.

    We need to get involved much earlier. We can't let the parties pick their party people in the primary to represent them instead of us.

    There's a big online Rand Paul money bomb on August 20th. Read all about it at RunRandRun.com.




    Buy rice. Buy beans. Buy guns. Buy ammo.
    This is your final SHTF warning.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central KY
    Posts
    917

    Post imported post

    Though I find myself more aligned with the Constitution Party, I registered Republican in order to support Rand!

  16. #16
    Newbie cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,335

    Post imported post

    Rand will be getting somesupport from outside Kentucky too. But only you boys can vote.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    It's August 20th, which is Ron Paul's birthday, and the date selected for the Rand Paul money bomb!

    http://www.randpaul2010.com

    Please give what you can. I did!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    41

    Post imported post

    I just donated today. I also donated to Bob Mcdonnell In the Va. governor race.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Mainstream coverage from WHAS, Channel 11.

    WARNING: turn down your audio before watching this video. They've apparently never heard of "clipping", and all their knobs read "11".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVDG8cM-zu0


  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    The August 20 Money Bomb for Rand Paul raised (unofficially) $433,509.

    It wasn't the million bucks that we hoped for, but it's an amazing total for a first-time candidate in a 24 hour period.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    I was busy today making a Rand Paul video, and other things, and barely got my donation in before midnight, but I made it!




    PS - Here's the video I made to document the grassroots campaign.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGnJzdEOI1Q


    PPS - Watch for the OPEN CARRY at 35 seconds!


    Buy rice. Buy beans. Buy guns. Buy ammo.
    This is your final SHTF warning.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Hah! That's great!

    I loved the recycled RP'08 signs. I sent most of mine to other districts, but I've probably got a few left in the garage.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    I'd like to get my hands on seven Coroplast yard signs with the wire stakes. I need something I can cheaply convert to Guns And Buns signs to use in Jacobson Park to direct folks to the OC Picnic.


    Buy rice. Buy beans. Buy guns. Buy ammo.
    This is your final SHTF warning.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Liberty4Ever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    330

    Post imported post

    Update: A story broke in yesterday's Courier-Journal newspaper that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is endorsing Trey Grayson and having a $500+ per person fund raiser for him. The NRSC is an organization that helps to elect Republican senators.

    http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...8250355/-1/rss

    Usually, the GOP maintains at least a plausible pretense that they are allowing the members of the party to pick their candidate in the primary before they get involved to support the candidates, but not anymore. This is nothing more than Mitch McConnell picking Grayson as his lap poodle to replace Bunning after kicking Bunning out of the Senate for not supporting McConnell's TARP-1 bailout. Bunning went on national TV and rightfully called it "socialism". It's actually worse than garden variety socialism because corrupt Wall Street banksters got the money, but... close enough. Now, it looks like We the People are picking Rand Paul, someone who would never vote for bailouts for banksters, and McConnell & Co. are pulling out all the stops to help Grayson.

    This is nothing but an oligarchy disregarding the will of the people to choose their candidate so they can maintain their power. That's not how it was intended to work when our nation's founders set up our government.

    This was a stupid thing for the GOP leadership to do. First, there will be an opposing money bomb that'll generate a lot more donations for Rand than their invitation-only pay-for-play political fundraiser will attract. Second, they have revealed who they really are. As if the voters weren't already mad enough at them for their shenanigans, now they're caught red handed, ignoring the will of the people and engaging in back room deals and picking our candidates for us.

    They've done a horrible job. Why would we want more like them?

    The Republican Party leadership is now so brain dead and out of touch and totally dysfunctional that I wouldn't trust them to organize a bake sale without screwing it up.

    Rand Paul, Y'all!


    Buy rice. Buy beans. Buy guns. Buy ammo.
    This is your final SHTF warning.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510

    Post imported post

    Liberty4Ever wrote:
    Update: A story broke in yesterday's Courier-Journal newspaper that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is endorsing Trey Grayson and having a $500+ per person fund raiser for him. The NRSC is an organization that helps to elect Republican senators.

    http://www.courier-journal.com/artic...8250355/-1/rss

    Usually, the GOP maintains at least a plausible pretense that they are allowing the members of the party to pick their candidate in the primary before they get involved to support the candidates, but not anymore.
    For some time, it's been obvious that elected officials no longer go to Washington to represent our desires to the Congress, in an attempt to persuade them to do what we want. Instead, they come from Washington to represent their parties, and attempt to persuade us to accept what they're going to do.

    They no longer even maintain a pretense of serving their constituents rather than their party.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •