Posted on 02/08/2014 11:05:37 AM PST by jimbo123
Open-borders pimp Paul is not the answer.
“You should really think about this.”
I have thought about it, and fully stand behind it. I did not say that either President Bush did not make mistakes - some serious. I said they are both preferably to any “Paul” or Libertarians.
I would rather have a “big government” IF it has a conservative bent, than the ANARCHY that Libertarians envision.
There is no doubt, in my thinking, that the Patriot Act has been abused. IMO - criminally so by the Obama administration. However, I understand why it was enacted when it was. Like ANY law, it can be abused in the hands of unsavory leaders, or those appointed by them. Eric Holder is unsavory, as it President Obama.
There has not been a POTUS, to include President Reagan (Ronald Magnus) that has not made mistakes...often bad ones. Look at some of his SCOTUS appointments. But, he is still a great POTUS, and although I would not equate either President Bush with President Reagan, I would still consider them “good” - especially compared to the democrats that held the position of POTUS.
A Ron Paul administration would have been a disaster as bad as Mr. Obama, and Rand Paul is no better. Big “L” Libertarians like the Pauls should stop running as Republicans and screwing up the primaries.
God Bless Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, regardless of errors they made. And my God spare us from Libertarian anarchists and isolationist fools.
Once again you prove yourself not conservative. No real conservative would ever utter such nonsense. Big government is evil, period. Both Bushes were Big Government progressives, but at least HW was competent, W was not. W's policies (grow government, spend more, nation building wars, etc) ruined the country.
Name a "decent" GOP candidate.
“Big government is evil, period.”
That is utter nonsense and IS NOT “conservative” per se. There is NOTHING intrinsically EVIL about “Big government” anymore than there is in a firearm. It is only “evil” in the hands of the wrong persons. Also, the “type” of “big government” is an important factor.
In my thinking, a “big federal government” is NECESSARY (at least at some level) for us to maintain a LARGE standing military to protect us from foreign threats and maintain superpower status. A “balanced” conservative of the Reagan variety wants a very strong and large military.
Now do I want large federal “social programs” and meddlesome agencies like the EPA? NO, OF COURSE NOT! However, although I consider that type of “big government” to be wasteful spending and an unnecessary debt increaser....I don’t consider it evil...just undesirable.
I consider persons that want to cut the military to be at a minimum foolish, and at worst traitors. That is the kind of idiocy Rand Paul and his libertarian ilk want. IF you agree with jepordizing this country’s security by downsizing the military to save money or because you are paranoid to think it will be used against you....you are deluded or a potential traitor as well. To maintain a large military requires maintaining a “big government”....like I previously stated...at some level. Enough to support that military.
“Name a “decent” GOP candidate.”
Irrelevant. Paul being in the primary precludes any being possible. He should NOT run as a Republican, and should stop calling himself Republican...as should he supporters.
A Department of Education, an Energy Department, a HUD or an EPA or BIA are not necessary to maintain a large standing military.
We could get by with a far smaller federal government and still have an effective military.
Bump.
Love Rand.
What some people do not understand about libertarians is that they can be conservative, or not.
No, but I would vote for Scott Walker Pres Rand Paul VP
You make a mistake by throwing all libertarians into the anarchy camp -- that's a pretty small contingent. Rand Paul is no better. Big “L” Libertarians like the Pauls should stop running as Republicans and screwing up the primaries.
Well, we disagree there. Rand Paul is much more reasonable than his father, in my opinion.
God Bless Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, regardless of errors they made.
All three, good men. The latter two, however, weren't too concerned with individual liberty. That's a mistake I don't take lightly.
Both he and his father were elected as Republicans, so your point is moot.
Okay, now I know why the Dept. of Education, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Forest Service, The E.P.A., the IRS, agents of the Comptroller of the Currency (bank examiners) and every other alphabet agency has armed agents and SWAT teams.
Thank you for clarifying that /sarc.
“Both he and his father were elected as Republicans, so your point is moot.”
No the point is not moot. This just shows that both Pauls are dishonest by calling themselves Republicans, and that the people in Texas in Kentucky were naïve to have elected them as “Republicans.” Electing these men is, of course, up to the people of the state. However, calling them Republicans, while it is the people’s ability to do so, it doesn’t make it right. A great many persons that have come out of NE states like Maine are called “Republicans”, but are not....they would be considered “Democrats” in most other states. The reverse used to occur in the South where “Democrats” were elected that were really Republicans...but at that time folks there just couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a Republican. Thankfully that has changed.
Whatever, neither Paul is a Republican...both are Libertarians that cannot get elected if they ran under the proper party title.
I’m sorry, but I think he shot both feet off when he demanded the GOP take a more relaxed stand on illegal immigration. He’s dead to me now, and I liked him only a few weeks ago.
“Okay, now I know why the Dept. of Education, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Forest Service, The E.P.A., the IRS, agents of the Comptroller of the Currency (bank examiners) and every other alphabet agency has armed agents and SWAT teams.....Thank you for clarifying that /sarc.”
Please take some classes in basic English and work on your reading comprehension. Never did I say I agree with domestic agencies being “large” or “armed like a military.” I said I was for a large standing Army (i.e. DoD) to deal with exterior threats to the country.
I only want a “large government” for the purpose of maintaining a large DoD military for foreign threat and the projection of and protection of American interests abroad.
I don’t want other bloated bureaus - and I want the DoD to managed carefully so it is not wasting money. I am NOT for unlimited spending and I AM for responsible spending. You should never spend more than you take in. This is true for a family or a country.
So, why do you want to be a Republican cheerleader, rather than an advocate for liberty?
Then how do you explain that my local town's police department (30,000 population) just received a "surplus" 12-ton APC complete with desert camo paint, armored top, bottom and sides?
What do you thing my "local" police department is going to do with that thing?
“Then how do you explain that my local town’s police department (30,000 population) just received a “surplus” 12-ton APC complete with desert camo paint, armored top, bottom and sides?....What do you thing my “local” police department is going to do with that thing?”
What does that have to do with what I said I want (a Big government ONLY to provide for NATIONAL defense against foreign threats). I NEVER said anything about wanting a local law enforcement agency to become a military force - an obvious abuse of power and clearly - IMO - illegal. What the current administration has done is NOT the result of what I said I want in a Federal Government. IF you libertarian types get your way (which you won’t) and manage to get Rand Paul elected...you “may” be able to stop the local abuse of police authority....but at the same time HE IS ISOLATIONIST and WILL serverely cut and gut our military (not being used as a weapon against the people) to where we WILL BE open and vulnerable to foreign attack.
BTW - Stop moaning about your PD having APCs and deal with it at the local and state level. Don’t turn the Federal Government over to a what is essentially a peacenik to deal with local abuses you should have stood against...and rallied your community against.
Also, although the thought of an APC is disturbing, and I don’t like it, unless it also has a fully automatic machine gun turret on it....then it is just an armored vehicle. All it does is protect those inside from small arms fire. It really doesn’t pose that grave a danger to honest citizens. It is almost silly that anyone would want such a vehicle. However, I fully agree that it looks bad, and is definitely NOT a step in the right direction...but it is a local issue. Deal with it locally. Yes, I know the feds gave it to your community, but they didn’t HAVE to take it. If your community would say no, then the officials would say no or lose the next election.
“So, why do you want to be a Republican cheerleader, rather than an advocate for liberty?”
I AM A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE FIRST OF ALL. I do NOT agree with the libertarian view of “liberty.” I do NOT agree that liberty should allow vice to be legal (prostitution, drugs, etc.) I want to “conserve” what is morally right and good and discourage what is not....or at least not allow it to go unchecked. Anyway, what Libertarians call liberty is not true liberty, but instead a lesser form of anarchy. That isn’t true “freedom.” So, your question is ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.