Curious how users on the new ark feel about Rand
About the author
ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥComments
Rand may not be perfect like Jesus.
But Rand Paul is Thousand Time Better then the Rep and Dem Establishment.
.
I'm all in for Rand
While I am not
"all in for Rand", as, I have been a harsh critic of his at times, I think ecard has a point: He twice filibustered for many hours to try to protect liberty. This shows where his heart and his efforts are placed. To try to compare Rand and Trump is absurd. Trump emits a pro liberty statement about 10% of the time, and the other 90% of his utterances are calls for drastic curtailments of liberty. While I would vote for neither Trump nor Hillary in the general election, I believe, if that were the choice, I would quietly be hoping that Hillary wins. Hillary scares me, but Trump scares the Hell out of me. I can support Rand for President, on the general grounds that he genuinely appreciates the concept of liberty, and would work to the best of his ability to increase it. While he still might take some actions to decrease some peoples liberty, he would do this less than either Hillary or Trump on virtually all issues. This is a big turnaround for me, as I stated before that I could not vote for someone who would decrease even one person's liberty. The standard I am using now, I think, will still keep me sleeping well at night.
.
Certainly a good sign
.
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
Paul Ryan is getting bashed
in the comment section of fox news...just shows how many people are now angry at the status quo...many true fiscal conservatives will not vote for Trump, but will vote for him because of his deportation plan, that is why Rubio will not win, because he supports legalization of 11mil... In the end that will split the vote to Rand....
"Justice is indivisible, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". MLK
Supporting any politician is
Supporting any politician is supporting your own enslavement. They all want the same thing. The power to steal your property, and the 18 trillion reasons so many give don't excuse one cent of it. If there is no consent then it is 100% illegal, fraud, criminal, and should be dealt with harshly and swiftly.
.
As far as I know
Rand is the only candidate talking property rights
...
So are you saying that we're all wasting our time with Rand?
That everything Rand's been fighting for and bringing to attention is all for show?
"They all want the same thing. The power to steal your property"
I'm aware that Trump VERY HIGHLY supports eminent domain. Rand has stated that he's AGAINST it. Is Rand lying?
What do you suggest, full on revolution? If not, then what?
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
Rand is for this, trump is
Rand is for this, trump is for that, IT DOES NOT MATTER. It is a false paradigm. Politics is all a false choice.These politicians and presidents are all puppets. They use the color of law to do as they please, but really it is all for the international banks. I have no need for the lesser of two evil. It's still evil. The real issue is that no revolution has ever gone far enough. We are all so reasonable, that we have allowed ourselves to be enslaved.
.
You know, You really didn't answer the questions.
Can you give me some examples on Rand specifically, since Rand is the one I mentioned by name?
You're throwing a broad blanket out there and painting all politicians with a broad brush. I singled Rand out for a reason. I would sincerely appreciate your responses to the original questions (I asked you 3 about Rand - and 2 about solution) I asked you.
Can you please answer them? Thank you.
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
I am 100% against government.
I am 100% against government. Rand is yet another cog in the machine. It does not matter what he or any other politician has to say, I want no part of it and I will not actively support it. Whether the subject is eminent domain or anything else, I don't care what any of them have to say, because at the end of the day they seem to think that whatever they have to say gets to be backed up by the color of law. I do support full on revolution. The problem is that no revolution has ever gone far enough.
You want me to answer these specific questions, but getting into this dialog is a false paradigm. Since I think all politics is slavery and evil, debating what one politician said about this subject or that subject is all a moot point. It is a false paradigm. We don't need politicians and government. Again, voting for this or that is an act of aggression or an act of self defense. It has nothing to do with liberty and freedom.
A final note, I like ron paul. He has a lot to offer, but I don't want him to be my master. His son rand is nothing like his dad. We would all be better off without their government.
.
Okay interesting, because Rand is the ONLY one
that is calling for small and limited government! It seems Rand is the only one trying to, at the very least, to shrink government - while no one else is, yet you're lumping him as the same as all the rest.
"A final note, I like ron paul. He has a lot to offer, but I don't want him to be my master. His son rand is nothing like his dad."
Neither Ron nor Rand want to be your master - it's part of their attraction to Liberty lovers and part of the reason they have their respect. Rand has also proposed term limits - which should tell you something.
Ron Paul has also gone on record stating that Rand is very similar to him, so what makes you disagree with Ron's statement? In case you haven't seen it, here is a small part of it:
"Rand is the ONLY one in the race who is standing up for your Liberty, across the board....he is our best hope to restore liberty, limited government and the Bill of Rights and finally end the big spending status quo in Washington, D.C."
"There is not one candidate who has run for president in my lifetime who can say they fully share my commitment to liberty, Austrian economics, small government, and following the Constitution, [more] than my son, Rand Paul."
So again, what makes you disagree with Ron on this? Is there something you have seen first hand or personally witnessed to support your view on Rand?
In another post, you wrote;
"Death to all government, I do not consent to another individual running my life and hurting me for not doing their bidding."
How do you picture Rand specifically hurting you for not doing his bidding? What has Rand specifically said to make you think that Rand is power hungry unlike his like his father?
I fully understand your points on "masters" having power over you. But I think it's unfair of you to lump someone like Rand as wanting to be your master unless you have something to back it up. It goes against everything he's said and demonstrated thus far. Can you show me some examples of Rand wanting to be your master, wanting to hurt you, & have you do his bidding?
I have no problem with you not supporting Rand or anyone else for that matter. But when you lump Rand in with the rest of them as you have - on a site that actively supports Rand no less - it raises questions. I hope there is something you can show me on Rand - maybe I'll learn something & you'll open my eyes to something I wasn't aware of. Otherwise, IMHO they become nothing more than baseless accusations on Rand.
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
"Can you show me some
"Can you show me some examples of Rand wanting to be your master, wanting to hurt you, & have you do his bidding?"
He is a politician that is running for the president of the United states, (corporation.) That tells me everything I need to know. Just make him Chief Executive officer of the corporation and he will fix it all for us. He will end the IRS, BATFE, DEA, EPA, Public Schools, and all the millions of laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution, except for murder, (treason) and Theft (taxes.)
Lets say for fun, that 20 million people elect Rand and he becomes president. For starters, 20 million is a small minority, so it ain't the will of the people. Second, just because you consent to having him run your life, how does that contract me into having him run my life ? Government and politicans and the order followers are the problem. Always has been. Playing that game over and over again but expecting different results is insanity.
.
The argument that you have put forth falls flat
because its based on a typicall logical fallacy Error of Composition: arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
your welcome to try again.
Those who are; are those whom are not.
I'm not sure either you or
I'm not sure either you or ecard is understanding mothercirce's point. It is not that since some/most politicians are bad, therefore Rand must be, and it is not that Rand believes in just as big a government as the other DC elitists, it is that government is inherently and immutably immoral and therefore participating in it is immoral. If we accept that premise then Rand would be immoral for his job, and we would be immoral to elect him to anything for any reason. This is a simple and logically consistent argument that is predicated on only one thing: Is all government immoral as a matter of course? Until you can address the real issue mothercirce has with Rand, you are inadvertently using straw men, and will never have a real dialog. Personally, I disagree with the premise, but it is a valid question and neither of you has really addressed it.
ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ
I understood her point. I just refrained
from commenting or making any sort of value judgment based on content or by questioning the validity of her statements. I only pointed out that the abstract mechanic behind her argument, it's form, made the augment fall flat, hence, her augment isn't valid because it wasn't constructed properly; furthermore, there are other problems and generalization in that argument as I only point out the main one.
Again, It was not a critique of the content used to support her argument or it's conclusion/Main point. It was a critique of the reasoning behind it.
The website is in the process getting a facelift and I can't see who you are replying to. I'm assuming it's Ecard and me? All I see is that you came after me.
Those who are; are those whom are not.
First of all I wasn't
First of all I wasn't intending to "come after" either of you but rather to clarify something I feel went unseen.
As for the supposed fallacy, I understood quite well what you were trying to say, but I can see that I was not as clear. I also want to clarify again that I am not agreeing with circe's premise at all, but intend to demonstrate that her logic is not fallacious. I'm going to go slowly so I can see exactly where I went unclear.
Let me put it in formal logical form:
First a fallacy:
Some A are B,
C is A,
Therefore C is B.
With some nouns this becomes:
Some politicians are bad,
Rand is a politician,
therefore Rand is bad.
Am I correct that this is what you understand circe's argument to be? This argument is totally fallacious, but my point is that this is not the argument circe is using.
Now I will create a valid logical argument:
All A are B,
C is A,
Therefore C is B.
This is a valid logical form. With some nouns it becomes:
All government officials are bad,
Rand is a government official,
therefore Rand is bad.
Even though I disagree with the premise, the form of this argument is correct and hence not fallacious. This seems to me the argument that circe is making. Did I miss something?
ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ
Fallacy of composition
this is very subtle idea: when attributes, as regards to its the parts, are used to to say something about the whole, the same is true with the inverse, when we take attributes of the whole and make inferences about its parts. Both can be seen as generalizations.
Also can be considered as an errors of integration or division.
Generally, it's fine if you are making a scientific argument as you aren't using deductive reasoning, but instead a combination of abductive and inductive reasoning. This is how almost all normal people think. But you run into possibility of being wrong when we try this with different subject matters. David Humes assumption about nature plays a strong role in why this might be.
You are right with the two general form you presented. But what i was talking about is a a bit of a different concept.
Fallacy
Some A are B,
C is A, ( or did you mean to say all C's are A's ?)
Therefore C is B.
That conclusion is invalid, as you pointed out. All we can correctly say to correct this is that Some C's are B's, which are generally weak inferences and not usfull, but we avoid overstating and extrapolating; hence, why politicians always use the modifier "some" , which you probably already knew that considering we are having this discursion.
All A are B,
C is A,
Therefore C is B.
This is is fine as it is.
Were are getting into the weeds now :)
When we get into very broad arguments, when tend to approach the limits of reasonableness as almost all broad argument tend to break down into completely ridiculous conclusions.
Those who are; are those whom are not.
is this donnay or AF writing?
please specify. :)
.
I'm trying to be as CLEAR & "SPECIFIC" as possible
Yet the answers given are danced around in a broad and general term. It's completely avoiding (or refusing to answer) the question(s) that were asked. So much for the added "bolding".
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
I asked you for specifics on Rand. Can you, or can't you?
"Can you show me some examples of Rand wanting to be your master, wanting to hurt you, & have you do his bidding?"
You answered: "He is a politician that is running for the president of the United states, (corporation.) That tells me everything I need to know."
So by your theory, EVERY SINGLE COP is a murderer and has ZERO desire to serve his community, EVERY SINGLE PRIEST is a pedophile and has ZERO desire to serve a higher being and his fellow man, etc, etc.
In another of your posts, you felt the strong need to point out that the founding fathers were "white". I'm beginning to understand why.
"Lets say for fun, that 20 million people elect Rand and he becomes president. For starters, 20 million is a small minority, so it ain't the will of the people. Second, just because you consent to having him run your life, how does that contract me into having him run my life ?"
Well let's say for "fun" that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN voted for Obama. For starters, that's the majority - "and the will of the people". How do you think oboma is presently running MY life??? Is he telling me where to work, what to eat, who to vote and support, where I choose to volunteer or spend my money or time on, what music or alternative news to listen to, etc, etc...???
If the President is currently running YOUR life, then it's because you're letting him. So what are your options? Are you starting your revolution, or are you leaving the country? It doesn't seem that you're offering any other options or solutions other than continuing to live a hypocritical life under your self professed "masters".
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
Yeah, he's run it into bankruptcy multiple times
The country is already there.
And for the record, America is a Republic, not a business. The traitors in DC that have run it as such have put us where we are in the first place.
BTW - I'm still waiting for you to answer this for me Zoo:
1.) Please tell me how Trump supports & furthers the cause of Liberty?
2.) "If you support Trump, then you support what he stands for" - Agreed?
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
America the republic lays dormant
The president of the United States IS running a business...its called The United States of America Inc.
Thats why I secretly wish Ron Pau (or Rand)l would run for president of the country. My research indicates America hasn't had a president or any public officials since 1871...only corporate administrators.
<p>...</p>
Now that an interesting idea
running unopposed due to mass ignorance.
Those who are; are those whom are not.
That's a shame
I'd really hoped he'd behave a little differently over here than he did over on PL.
C'mon Zoo buddy, I'm rootin for ya!
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
Interesting. Yet you can't draw the line on ANY of these?
2nd Amendment Limits.
The Patriot Act.
Internet Censoring.
Whistle Blower Assassinations Without a Trial.
Eminent Domain.
The Censoring of the Press.
The Discrimination against an Entire Religion.
Trump also called for American Boots on the ground in the Middle East AGAIN - that is until he was almost booed off the stage earlier this year at CPAC.
I'm curious Zoo, do you still support Trump? Please tell me how Trump supports & furthers the cause of Liberty?
BTW, these are some of Trump's tweets on climate change:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/10/19/donald-trump-climate-change-tweets/
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
I liked where he recommended the killing of innocent families!
I mean, how over the top is that!
anyone else up for killing the women and children? (besides Trump. that is)
Geneva Conventions bar Donald Trump's idea of killing terrorists' families, as Rand Paul says
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/17/rand-paul...
.
Ironic that he's implying Rand is some kind of 2 faced fraud
Yet if we take HIS ENTIRE POST and substitute the word "Climate" for the word "China", - Well, I'll just let the music do the talking:
Doesn't even know where his own shirts are made, how convenient. SMH
After Trump rails bout jobs going 2 China, Dave pulls out Trump line of clothing. Ties made in China, shirts from Bangladesh.
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
Trump is such a fake
I bet none of his clothing or products are made in the USA
...
Trump would run our country like a corporation?
and that is why only an east coast businessman will do?
sounds reasonable.
in for a penny, in for a pound! ;)
.
I Supported Rand Paul All The Way Up Until
He hopped on the climate change bandwagon.
That's where I drew the line. I can only compromise so much.
I can bend and flex and be politically malleable, but that was the one thing that turned me off the most to Rand Paul.
If Rand came out with one simple, single Tweet saying, "Global warming is bunk," or something to that extent, I'd still support him.
Why doesn't he come flat out and just f'ng say it?
"You're being duped by the weather mob."
Instead of laying his true opinion on the line and being resolute, Rand plays both sides of the climate change fence and I find that to be unacceptable.
Climate changes. Where I live now used to be covered by a giant glacier.
Humans can change the weather with military technology, but they can not change the overall climate via everyday civilian participation of life on earth.
Humans can manipulate the weather, like the US military did in Vietnam, and the Chinese military did during the 2008 Olympics.
Exhaling CO2 out of our big mouths, burning fossil fuels and purchasing consumer products does not cause climate change.
If Rand Paul was more stern with his official position, I would definitely consider changing my mind, but until that happens I will continue to support the candidate who can defeat the Clinton/Bush machine.
Never be afraid to ask simple questions.
What does anyone know, truly?
He supposes it is both nature and man. He is faulted for this?
Patriots Unite!
Shit, it's ZOO
I see you are already adding to your massive accumulations of down votes from the PL. Can't you run away and join a circus, Zoo?
<p>...</p>
I actually Agree with Rand
the climate has been changing from the beginning, although man contributes to it, its so small that it makes no Impact whatsoever, its like a person sneezing in a hurricane.
i listened to Rand a couple times on the issue, and basically he is saying climate change is natural.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/30/rand_paul_on_climate_c...
...
I don't see how it's a deal
I don't see how it's a deal breaker for anyone.
What rand believes or doesn't believe about global warming fraud is irrelevant.
The only thing that matters is whether or not he plans to use government force and influence to manipulate businesses and levy taxes and restrictions on the people.
Rand Paul would be the last person to do that so I could care less if he believes the earth is warming or not.
- See more at: http://www.acalltopaul.com/content/suggestions-site-improvement#comment-934
"Do not neglect your music, it will be a companion which will sweeten many hours of life to you." Thomas Jefferson
Is there another option?
I sort of support Rand, and I'll most likely vote for him. I've been disappointed in his hedging and backtracking in the past, so I'm not as enthusiastic as I was for his dad. Nevertheless, I am usually the one defending Rand, so I guess I'm a 'supporter,' though really don't like that term. I endorse ideas; I try not to endorse men. As long as Rand espouses the same ideas that I endorse, then I guess we're fellow travellers.
.
Rand is the ONLY voice of reason
in the field.
Anyone know if Gary Johnson is running on the LP ticket? I could support that too
A man who chops his own wood is warmed by it twice
He will probably give it another go
They have to elect their nominee though. They need new blood in my opinion and a more charismatic person who can take that message further. Hard to find I would say. I just don't see poor Gary getting much attention. He could end up doing worse than last cycle.
This time around it seems people want a strong man with little experience in politics. A guy that will demand Americans first so they have to have a no no sense plan about immigration. The LP will put someone up unabashedly for open borders as they take that purist line for the most part.
UKIP a third party in Europe really embodied the country first populism that the world is thirsty for in this crashing economy. Trump basically took a page from that book. For the LP to be competitive they have to resonate with some kind of winning issue and get attention.
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
Never Be Defeated! https://youtu.be/XmTmTMcdxOs
Ummm....Anne???
Why did my avatar just blow up like that???
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
don't worry i'm adjusting the author pane and img size
it'll be fixed soon
"Do not neglect your music, it will be a companion which will sweeten many hours of life to you." Thomas Jefferson
I've said this before
No one is perfect. One will never be able to please everyone all of the time.
That being said;
Rand is the ONLY candidate that is fighting to defend OUR rights. I repeat, OUR rights. A couple of filibusters alone should have cemented that. Being for term limits should also clue you in on which side he's on. I'll never understand how some people can simply "overlook" this. Or choose some candidate who stands and represents lobbyist and corporate interest - instead of the peoples'. REALLY??? That's akin to fighting for ISIS.
Rand has my eternal gratitude for "standing" for OUR rights, when NO ONE else did, or even worse, fought to destroy those rights. The VERY LEAST I can do, is stand with him.
Thank you Rand.
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
Really Denise?
That thought never even crossed my mind. ;-)
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
Nothing wrong with that
It's been known to happen (ZOOOOOO - I mean ACHOOOO). Sorry, I just sneezed there ;-)
I STILL STAND WITH RAND!
Hillarious
there is nobody else to support, but Rand.
every other candidate is worthless
...
Pages
User login
Poll
Active forum topics
- QUIET ARMY?: Rep spotlights suspicious surge of illegal Chinese migrants
- We Are Offering More Money to Ukraine Than Our Marine Corps!
- RON PAUL-- Don’t Expect The Fed To Fix The Problems It Created!
- Speaker Johnson’s Ignominious Betrayal
- MARK DICE--Middle School Kids Revolt Against Next Phase of Wokeness!
- Biden Perpetuates Washington's Idiotic Steel Trade Policies
- Josh Hawley Moves to End FBI ‘Power Grab’ in Spy Powers Bill
- Chinese Immigrant and Congressional Candidate on Gun-Control
- April 19, 1775, Americans of all stripes–came together to defend themselves against the most professional army in the world.
New forum topics
- QUIET ARMY?: Rep spotlights suspicious surge of illegal Chinese migrants
- We Are Offering More Money to Ukraine Than Our Marine Corps!
- RON PAUL-- Don’t Expect The Fed To Fix The Problems It Created!
- Speaker Johnson’s Ignominious Betrayal
- MARK DICE--Middle School Kids Revolt Against Next Phase of Wokeness!
- Biden Perpetuates Washington's Idiotic Steel Trade Policies
- Josh Hawley Moves to End FBI ‘Power Grab’ in Spy Powers Bill
- Chinese Immigrant and Congressional Candidate on Gun-Control
- April 19, 1775, Americans of all stripes–came together to defend themselves against the most professional army in the world.
- Rep. Matt Gaetz Releases Report Alleging Cover-Up Of Stranded US Troops Overseas
Recent comments
- Allman Brothers - Jessica (Live) 1 day 12 hours ago
- Thanks for the book recommendation. I'm surprised the author... 1 day 21 hours ago
- Trial 2 days 20 hours ago
- And the beat goes on. Just another typical War-Loving RINO... 2 days 22 hours ago
- Hitler, Goebbles, Himmler... 1 week 3 days ago
- Maybe be like Vietnam war 3 weeks 1 day ago
- Too late, There will be a draft, then. 3 weeks 1 day ago
- TRUMP NEEDS TO APPEAL 4 weeks 15 hours ago
- WOW 1 month 18 hours ago
- La Perra Blanco 1 month 4 days ago
- The High Jivers 1 month 4 days ago
- Slash w/ Brian Johnson & Steven Tyler - Killing Floor 1 month 1 week ago
- Rickey Medlocke Band (Live) 1 month 2 weeks ago
- YEP 2 months 5 days ago
- Absolutely! And why not?... 2 months 5 days ago
Liberty Tweets
Support The Site
