Rand Paul front runner in Iowa New Hampshire

[GodIsSalvation]

I am praying for a Republican president because if another Democrat is elected this country will never recover in our lifetime from the debt and shambles that this country is in. Hillary will probably run but hopefully her appeal will not translate into a victory in the general election. For myself, I am not asking the government to 'help' me but rather, not hurt me any further with the constant nonsense. The US foreign policy is non-existent and it would not surprise me if a major war broke out in the Middle East in the coming months.

Meh, seems to me the Republicans aren't too much better at running the economy anymore than the Democrats seeing how much Bush and Obama spent us into debt. Though in fairness, one could attribute this moreso to the do-nothing-but-evil Congress (both parties being culpable). I think between the GOP and Dem misrule the past 14 years that all ready the country is in shambles. It's moreso about repairing rather than averting the damage.

As far as a major war, it all ready broke out in 2010, it's too late to stop it now, and country after country is being consumed. In the perilous years ahead, I think only a strong and inclusive leader like Hillary Clinton, Rand Paul, or Colin Powell are going to be even close to capable to dealing with these problems, and sadly, even that might not be enough.

 

[1still_waters]

People are scared about Rand's non-interventionist views. I think these views are the best option.
Not because I have this delusion that countries will leave us alone, if we leave them alone. I know that's not the fact. I think non-interventionism is the best option, because IF we have to go to war, we are on clear moral high ground. The moral high ground is a valuable thing to have in war.

When we meddle around in the business of other countries as a way to prevent war, those other countries can always claim they attacked us because we were all up in their business. They can't make this claim when we leave the other countries alone.

It's always clear who is the aggressor when one person is minding their own business, and another person punches them for no reason. Things aren't so clear if they've been provoking each other back and forth.

War is bound to happen either way. If we're going to be in a war, I prefer having the moral high ground advantage, so it's crystal clear who is the aggressor. Because when there is a clear aggressor, it's harder for the world community to claim the other side is at fault too. That leaves us free from other countries feeling like they have to choose sides.

If it comes down to countries feeling like they have to choose sides, it's in our national security interest to be viewed as the one who was clearly minding their own business.

Sure this may leave room for madmen to grow, but at least when the madman tries his tricks, the world can stand united against him, knowing without a doubt that WE weren't provoking him by meddling in his business. Thus giving us more support and maybe even allies.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

i could not support rand paul in a presidential election...he leans to the left on just about every issue other than the economy...where he leans so far to the right that his ideology is unworkable...

other people have correctly pointed out that paul has an isolationism problem...while 'noninterventionism' is becoming more popular in the republican party nowdays...fortunately sanity eventually seems to prevail in republican foreign policy debates...or at least it has so far... the truth is that there is very little difference between obama's policy of inaction and paul's ideology of inaction...paul would basically take obama's disinterest in world affairs to a whole new level...and i hope that fact will disqualify him in a republican presidential primary...

another serious weakness paul has is that he has not taken a clear position on illegal immigration...he is all over the map and nobody who pays attention really knows what he stands for...this is a major problem for any candidate in a party with strong grassroots emotion on the immigration issue...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

People are scared about Rand's non-interventionist views.

and rightfully so...at one point rand paul suggested just releasing everyone from gitmo...his reasoning was that 'it would take them a while to get back here'...

paul's foreign policy wouldn't just be 'noninterventionist'...it would be a dereliction of duty...

 

[GodIsSalvation]

i could not support rand paul in a presidential election...he leans to the left on just about every issue other than the economy...where he leans so far to the right that his ideology is unworkable...

other people have correctly pointed out that paul has an isolationism problem...while 'noninterventionism' is becoming more popular in the republican party nowdays...fortunately sanity eventually seems to prevail in republican foreign policy debates...or at least it has so far... the truth is that there is very little difference between obama's policy of inaction and paul's ideology of inaction...paul would basically take obama's disinterest in world affairs to a whole new level...and i hope that fact will disqualify him in a republican presidential primary...

another serious weakness paul has is that he has not taken a clear position on illegal immigration...he is all over the map and nobody who pays attention really knows what he stands for...this is a major problem for any candidate in a party with strong grassroots emotion on the immigration issue...

Heh, these are good analyses, but one thing; How has President Obama had a foreign policy of inaction? Under Obama America has greatly increased its activity all over the world, both for better and worse, probably moreso than anytime since WW2.

 

[1still_waters]

and rightfully so...at one point rand paul suggested just releasing everyone from gitmo...his reasoning was that 'it would take them a while to get back here'...

paul's foreign policy wouldn't just be 'noninterventionist'...it would be a dereliction of duty...

We've held them for over a decade without trial.
We're going bananas over Mexico holding one of our citizens for a few months.

 

[1still_waters]

i could not support rand paul in a presidential election...he leans to the left on just about every issue other than the economy...where he leans so far to the right that his ideology is unworkable...

other people have correctly pointed out that paul has an isolationism problem...while 'noninterventionism' is becoming more popular in the republican party nowdays...fortunately sanity eventually seems to prevail in republican foreign policy debates...or at least it has so far... the truth is that there is very little difference between obama's policy of inaction and paul's ideology of inaction...paul would basically take obama's disinterest in world affairs to a whole new level...and i hope that fact will disqualify him in a republican presidential primary...

another serious weakness paul has is that he has not taken a clear position on illegal immigration...he is all over the map and nobody who pays attention really knows what he stands for...this is a major problem for any candidate in a party with strong grassroots emotion on the immigration issue...

I don't know how being pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-freedom of religion, pro-freedom of speech, pro-cutting federal government, pro-cutting taxes is leaning left.

Yes he leans left by default on social issues, but that's the tradeoff of having someone who doesn't use government to enforce many things. It's not that he's necessarily FOR those things, it's just that to be a consistent libertarian, he has to have a hands off policy on ALL things.

Sure we could have a government that is less hands off, but then the tradeoff is NSA, Patriot Act, Obamacare, etc.

Each perspective has pros and cons.

 

[1still_waters]

I really think conservatives, liberals, and progressives are at a major crossroads.
They have to decide if they want freedom, or if they want government.
Each side wants freedom, but only for the things they desire.


If they want freedom, then they have to leave room for people making choices they don't agree with.
If they want government, then they have to accept government intruding on freedoms they want.
You can't intrude on the freedom of others, but then throw a fit when your freedom gets intruded on.
That's not how freedom works.

I know as Christians that leaves us in a sticky place. Does that mean we choose the Libertarian so we can have freedom of religion, at the cost of having a government that's hands off on same sex marriage? Or do we recognize the tradeoffs, and attempt to change culture primarily through preaching the gospel?

Freedom is a great thing, but it has to go both ways. And unfortunately for us, that may mean allowing people to do things we don't approve of. We support freedom of religion, but the tradeoff is that everyone has the freedom to worship a non-Christian god. Is that tradeoff better than what we'd have if the government dictated religion?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I really think conservatives, liberals, and progressives are at a major crossroads.
They have to decide if they want freedom, or if they want government.
Each side wants freedom, but only for the things they desire.


If they want freedom, then they have to leave room for people making choices they don't agree with.
If they want government, then they have to accept government intruding on freedoms they want.
You can't intrude on the freedom of others, but then throw a fit when your freedom gets intruded on.
That's not how freedom works.

I know as Christians that leaves us in a sticky place. Does that mean we choose the Libertarian so we can have freedom of religion, at the cost of having a government that's hands off on same sex marriage? Or do we recognize the tradeoffs, and attempt to change culture primarily through preaching the gospel?

Freedom is a great thing, but it has to go both ways. And unfortunately for us, that may mean allowing people to do things we don't approve of. We support freedom of religion, but the tradeoff is that everyone has the freedom to worship a non-Christian god. Is that tradeoff better than what we'd have if the government dictated religion?

Interesting take on political ideologies in America. Personally I do not believe freedom exists, but is merely an illusion. Especially in the America that I have grown up in. In fact I would contend that this notion of "Freedom" and "Democracy" is actually dangerous because look how much evil is condoned or carried out by the State for the sake of "Democracy and freedom" when in reality neither democracy nor freedom has ever existed.

Heh I actually did something of a presentation about this recently in my Politics class about Divine Right vs. Democracy.

I feel like this verse particularly sums up the fallen state of American society:

2 Peter 2:19

[SUP]19 [/SUP]While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

 

[1still_waters]

Interesting take on political ideologies in America. Personally I do not believe freedom exists, but is merely an illusion. Especially in the America that I have grown up in. In fact I would contend that this notion of "Freedom" and "Democracy" is actually dangerous because look how much evil is condoned or carried out by the State for the sake of "Democracy and freedom" when in reality neither democracy nor freedom has ever existed.

Heh I actually did something of a presentation about this recently in my Politics class about Divine Right vs. Democracy.

I feel like this verse particularly sums up the fallen state of American society:

2 Peter 2:19

[SUP]19 [/SUP]While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

I think when we talk freedom, we mean room to decide which direction you will go.
Freedom to choose the gospel, righteousness, and the ways of God.
Freedom to choose the opposite, and put yourself in bondage.

In a society that doesn't offer these freedoms, there isn't as much consequence free room to choose the gospel.

The problem with America is that we had this freedom to choose directions, but now we've used our freedom to corrupt ourselves. As a result things have gotten worse, and now people want more government intervention to put a leash on the evil we've used our freedom for. Before we didn't need that leash, because our hearts were not as dark. Now that they're darker, we're calling on government to constrain the evil. Which means more government and less freedom.

 

[Oncefallen]

Freedom is a great thing, but it has to go both ways. And unfortunately for us, that may mean allowing people to do things we don't approve of. We support freedom of religion, but the tradeoff is that everyone has the freedom to worship a non-Christian god. Is that tradeoff better than what we'd have if the government dictated religion?

I have a feeling that if the founding fathers knew what society would look like 200 years down the road that our constitution might have looked a bit different. When you dig through what the founding fathers had to say it is pretty obvious that they did not foresee a day where the God of the Bible and the morality laid out within the Bible would be rejected by a large percentage of the population.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams


"Revelation assures us that "Righteousness exalteth a Nation" - Communities are dealt with in this World by the wise and just Ruler of the Universe. He rewards or punishes them according to their general Character. The diminution of publick Virtue is usually attended with that of publick Happiness, and the publick Liberty will not long survive the total Extinction of Morals."

Samuel Adams


"Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.":

Samuel Adams

"If we continue to be a happy people, that happiness must be assured by the enacting and executing of reasonable and wise laws, expressed in the plainest language, and by establishing such modes of education as tend to inculcate in the minds of youth, the feelings and habits of "piety, religion and morality," and to lead them to the knowledge and love of those truly Republican principles upon which our civil institutions are founded."

Samuel Adams

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion"

George Washington

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

George Washington

 

[1still_waters]

I have a feeling that if the founding fathers knew what society would look like 200 years down the road that our constitution might have looked a bit different. When you dig through what the founding fathers had to say it is pretty obvious that they did not foresee a day where the God of the Bible and the morality laid out within the Bible would be rejected by a large percentage of the population.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams


"Revelation assures us that "Righteousness exalteth a Nation" - Communities are dealt with in this World by the wise and just Ruler of the Universe. He rewards or punishes them according to their general Character. The diminution of publick Virtue is usually attended with that of publick Happiness, and the publick Liberty will not long survive the total Extinction of Morals."

Samuel Adams


"Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.":

Samuel Adams

"If we continue to be a happy people, that happiness must be assured by the enacting and executing of reasonable and wise laws, expressed in the plainest language, and by establishing such modes of education as tend to inculcate in the minds of youth, the feelings and habits of "piety, religion and morality," and to lead them to the knowledge and love of those truly Republican principles upon which our civil institutions are founded."

Samuel Adams

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

Charles Carroll

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion"

George Washington

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

George Washington

Does this imply they wouldn't have left as much freedom wiggle room in the constitution if they saw where we are now?

 

[Oncefallen]

Does this imply they wouldn't have left as much freedom wiggle room in the constitution if they saw where we are now?

I have a feeling that the Establishment Clause might have been quite specific as to what "establishment" would be considered since that is what was used to remove God, prayer, and the Bible from schools and government in recent history.

Many of the "freedoms" and "rights" that the federal court system have granted in recent decades would have been unthinkable in the late 1700's. Just as an example, today engaging in homosexual acts is a constitutionally protected freedom whereas in 18th century America it was a crime punishable by death (as were all sexual perversions) in all but one state and that state dictated a very lengthy prison sentence.

I tend to hold to the opinion that the founding fathers held that absolute freedom devoid of morality will cause a society to implode. Likewise, our freedoms hinge on personal responsibility (something that is likewise vanishing from our culture). Our culture has degraded to the point that people feel that they should have the freedom to make their own choices, but that society as a whole should take the responsibility for their bad choices.

 

[skipp]

When it comes to the next election at this point I'm just thankful for the 22nd amendment.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

We have a two headed problem. On the one hand, Democrats are dangerous to the integrity and sustainability of the U.S.. On the other, so are the Republicans. The pendulum swings between these two deeply flawed political ideologies, over time, who both push the U.S. toward very serious crisis.


Pat wrote an article recently reminding us that: http://buchanan.org/blog/gop-ultima...n=Feed:+PatrickBuchanan+(Pat+Buchanan+Update)

Lest we forget, the GOP are warmongers plain and simple. They have a problem with pushing the nation into deep debt by spending trillions in handouts to lazy (and often addicted) immoral liberals and the illegal aliens who dropout of school to start a life of crime associating with street gangs and cartels but zero problem pushing the nation into deep debt by spending trillions to warmonger all over the planet including another uber-serious Cold War with Russia who was our ally just a few years ago (while empowering the growing economic and military threat of China by diverting U.S. jobs, U.S. capital investment, and U.S. invention/innovation enmasse away from the U.S. which the GOP and Democrats are both guilty of doing in addition to the negligence they've shown with respect to national secrecy and Chinese military hackers).

It's a lose/lose for America with these two political parties behaving like they do and that's the real problem.

http://buchanan.org/blog/gop-ultima...n=Feed:+PatrickBuchanan+(Pat+Buchanan+Update)

Heritage Foundation and Club for Growth Lobbying for China and Against America | Economy In Crisis

 

[skipp]

We need some new political parties. I wish we weren't so rigidly locked into a two-party system in the US. Because of that half the time people are just voting for the lesser of the two evils.

Rand Paul is one of the few GOP hopefuls who could get a big chunk of the youth vote.

 

[PoxEclipse]

Won't Get Fooled Again?

[video=youtube;Rp6-wG5LLqE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6-wG5LLqE[/video]


We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss


Satan At The Wailing Wall - YouTube

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Rand Paul publicly called for US missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, which would be aimed at Russia. Placing missiles in Poland and Czech Republic would be an extreme provocation to Russia who would certainly react strongly in ways we don't want them to including more war.

The GOP cannot break out of it's us versus them Cold War mentality with Russia and it's going to hurt both nations badly before it's over. Let's hope the damage is contained to economic crisis. *sigh.

Rand also calls for the sale of subsidized US oil to the Ukraine. The US already subsidizes gas in the Ukraine, but the gas comes from Russia. So Russian companies make money off of it. Imagine how much it would cost the US taxpayer just to transport oil from the United States to the Ukraine. We're $20 trillion in debt and about a decade away from serious economic pain due to the national debt and the impending interest payments (consider that by 2020 the annual interest payments on the national debt from the federal budget will exceed all annual U.S. military spending).

And, Rand Paul would accelerate our free trade and monopoly woes in a big way. He's all for more "free" trade and monopoly capitalism. Rand Paul glows when he speaks of giving China our jobs, capital, and innovation.

Like I said, it's just from the fire into the frying pan. That's the problem. The bill's going to come due and people are going to seriously suffer as a result. Both parties will blame each other and it won't solve anything. We're stuck.

And before you celebrate the idea of ten political parties, that hasn't worked out well for the countries that have them. They suck too. I don't mind a two party system if you have at least one really great political party (preferably both) with most people behind it/them.

We have the structure for success but it's ruled by two deeply flawed ideologies in an environment of greed, corruption, and ignorance.

Rand Paul is one of the few GOP hopefuls who could get a big chunk of the youth vote.

 

[skipp]

AgeofKnowledge, that is a somber post but it has a lot of truth in it. "Two deeply flawed ideologies" is a good way to describe it.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

There are reasons why America became a great and powerful nation. Reverse them, and you'll find the reasons why we are rapidly trending away from being a great and powerful nation.

Some of the reasons for U.S. supremacy include Christian ethics which materially reduced immorality and corruption while materially aiding productivity and invention/innovation/idea creation (presently in rapid decline); a powerful military that, except for the Civil War, we tried not to use too much until WWII required that from us (presently overextended in an environment of heavy indebtedness); cultural supremacy (oh I know this is not popular or politically correct to mention today but having a largely homogenius culture that produced exceedingly better results than competing cultures was a real benefit); Geography (large resource-rich nation isolated from powerful foes); industrial supremacy (we've pretty much scrapped this feature through reckless free trade agreements); a competitive capitalistic market that rewarded productivity and innovation (unfortuately this has fallen into monopoloy capitalism presently); limited centralized government (this is no longer the case); etc...

Just find what we used to do that worked and reverse it and you'll see the reversed behavior is what we're doing today... lol.

AgeofKnowledge, that is a somber post but it has a lot of truth in it. "Two deeply flawed ideologies" is a good way to describe it.