Bio not provided
This article is full of factual inaccuracies, but probably the biggest is that Rand Paul's bill is somehow bad because revealing the decision making process behind the Federal Reserve's monetary policy will somehow "politicize" it. How does forcing people to reveal the truth effect what they can do since the bill has no provisions to control what decisions the Fed makes!? Articles like this one are pure propaganda to try and marginalize the people who want to pull back the curtain on the process that has been sucking the life out of the U.S. Economy for years.
Nice try but nobody is buying it. Rand Paul isn't quite the economist that his father was, but his understanding of the economy is still far superior to most people currently in congress. And it's the fear mongers saying that an audit would somehow hurt the economy are the ones who are now marginalized, as their rants against an audit appear more and more desperate.
2 weeks, 4 days ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121007/rand-pauls-monetary-policy-views-make-him-very-dangerous-2016
@Tncdel @Bob_In_Boston @JennieWalsh @DanaPreston Actually I'm probably twice as conservative as you are, but the problem is you don't understand what it means to be a conservative. Being conservative is about "conserving"the amount of interference from the government. The Government should not be involved in marriage whatsoever - marriage is a religious sacrament and has nothing to do with government. That's why it's not in the constitution whatsoever. If you can find a church that will marry you, then you get married - it's none of the governments business.
As for immigration, I always have to laugh whenever I hear people complain about it when WE were the ones who came here and stole all the land from the native Americans. Wanna have tight borders? Kick every non-native-American person out. Otherwise, just shut up about it, because this country was literally FOUNDED by immigrants. It's so pathetic when people say "OK, I'm here, so now I don't want any MORE immigrants!" What we should be talking about is instituting the Fair Tax, so everyone, whether they are a citizen, an illegal immigrant, or a drug dealer, pays the same taxes for what they buy. The current tax system is 100% broken, that's why it doesn't work for illegal immigrants and people who get their money illegally.
But saying that Gary Johnson is some sort of "plant" for the Liberals is just ridiculous. Look at his actual voting record - he's not a religious conservative, but he's as Libertarian as anyone!
1 year, 8 months ago on Governor Perry Vetoes A Threat To Liberty
@Tncdel @JennieWalsh @DanaPreston That's the lamest slam against Gary Johnson I've ever seen! LOL There's nothing at all wrong with Gary Johnson - he was a hell of a candidate - 10x as qualified as any other GOP candidate except Ron Paul.
Marriage isn't mentioned once in the constitution - it's a religious ceremony and has nothing to do with government. The only thing Government should be involved in one way or another is "civil unions", so if you have an opinion about that, then feel free to express it, but don't try and claim that the constitution somehow endorses heterosexual marriage - it doesn't.
@tygerpaw25a @kayepope Of course Scott Brown had to go out of state to get money! How is a Republican leaning Independent going to get money in the land of Liberals, Taxachusetts?
1 year, 9 months ago on Ted Cruz: "I Don't Trust Republicans."
@truthbeknown Look at Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Justin Amash too. Don't just read news articles on them, actually look at how they vote and listen to their speeches. There ARE good people in Congress, they are just not talked about very much because they threaten the old boy's network currently in place.
@Bill Senior You are incredibly gullible if you think there was ANY difference between liberal Romney and liberal Obama. For example while Romney said he was a lifetime member of the NRA and was pro gun, take a good look at the gun laws in Massachusetts that Romney signed into law during his administration. They are the worst in the country behind New York and California!
If you believe one thing that came out of Romney's mouth then it proves that you are too gullible to be voting!
Ted Cruz is amazing, but unfortunately I don't think he's eligible to be the POTUS or VP. And he's doing such a good job in Congress, keeping the worst ones like Feinstein and McCain in check that we should probably leave him there.
I could care less about Rubio, because he's proven himself to not be a consistent friend of the Tea Party that he keeps claiming to be a part of.
It's Rand Paul that I think has a true chance to win the presidency in 2016. Rand has done a good job acting like a conservative without crowing about it, so I think there are plenty of Independents and even some Democrats who would vote for him. Especially since he's taken such a stand for civil liberties and the Constitution. He's like his father in that respect - while Democrats would never vote for a creep like Romney or McCain, who are loud and vocal in their RINOism, Rand really makes people feel like he's fighting for THEM, not some political party. That's what gives him the ability to win.
@JohnAdams69 @thesharpenedpen @Miller51550 It's pretty pitiful when someone is so lonely that they resort to correcting other people's posts on a website. The point of posting in a comments section is to communicate a point, and if you honestly think people wouldn't know what thesharpenedpen was trying say because he said "hung" instead of "hanged", then you should put on your helmet because the short bus is almost there to pick you up for school.
1 year, 9 months ago on Access denied | The Cable
@JohnAdams69 @thesharpenedpen @Miller51550 "grammar seems to be a problem you americans have distinguishing between. "
And that there is an example of "Irony". (but not "capitalization")
@johnboy4546 Boy do I hope Rand gets nominated in 2016 instead of Rubio... Rubio is just another RINO and I can't figure out why people keep talking about him as a "Tea Party" guy when he's just a go-along-to-get-along establishment follower!
@wigswest Totally agreed - the best thing that could happen for states rights is for some DEA guys to get thrown in jail for attempting to arrest someone in an MJ-friendly state, bringing the whole "federal authority" thing to a head.
The Federal government has ZERO authority to regulate drugs, and it's about time someone called them on it.
1 year, 10 months ago on Obama Drug Czar Says States Can’t Nullify Federal Drug Laws – Tenth Amendment Center
@DarrellGriffin @DocBarry1 That's baloney - if we get the right third party candidate, they'll be able to pull as many people from the Dems as the Republicans. For some reason people assume that third parties only pull from the GOP, but that's absolutely not true, and that kind of thinking is why we got Romney (who nobody really liked) instead of Ron Paul who *destroyed* Romney among independents, young voters, and even pulled in a significant number of Democrats. I think in the 2012 New Hampshire primary Ron Paul pulled in a high percentage of write-in votes in the Democratic primary!
The votes are there, we just need to stop letting the NeoCons convince us that the only way to win is to nominate crappy moderate candidates who don't appeal to anyone except for other NeoCons.
Even if you're right and a third party splits the party, the NeoCons need to realize that someone like me is just NOT going to vote for a liberal candidate like Mitt Romney. I live in Massachusetts, so I know how bad Romney was, and I'm sure people in Arizona were saying the same thing about Lame McCain. If you pick crappy candidates and don't listen to the grass roots who want a change, then you'll never win elections - it's that simple. We are done with the RINOs and want Liberty candidates, and all the talk about how "extreme" the tea party is isn't going to make us want to vote for your crappy candidates.
1 year, 11 months ago on Mark Levin rips the Republican rebranding, says Boehner and Priebus need to be thrown out
Technically OUR country was founded by a bunch of people who just wanted to be left alone, and wanted the absolute MINIMUM amount of government possible. They wanted no standing armies, they wanted to stick ONLY to defense of our borders (no foreign offensives) and they wanted people to take responsibility for themselves.
So pretty much our founding fathers were Libertarians.
1 year, 11 months ago on WATCH LIVE CPAC 2013
@stage9 @SheerPolitics Complete and utter crap. Libertarians treat adults like adults - you can make your own decisions and suffer the consequences of those decisions. Both Liberals and Conservatives want to control what everyone ELSE does instead of concentrating on doing the right thing themselves.
@Ripbrood @stage9 You're exactly right - make the government only acknowledge "civil unions" for legal rights. If you can find a church somewhere to call you "married" then more power to you, but that has nothing to do with the government.
@stage9 @plasticman2000 No, rational people are NOT afraid of a plant. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew weed, traded strains, and gave each other pipes. The only people who are afraid of it are the people who aren't smart enough to see through the propaganda.
@MichaelDontigney @stage9 @SheerPolitics Exactly. Any so-called conservative who voted for Romney should no longer be allowed to call themselves conservative.
@stage9 @SheerPolitics Actually it's exactly the opposite. People who would do something just because their friends are doing it are the cultish ones. Whether you're talking about Democrats or Republicans, they would both cut off their nose to spite their face if they thought it would hurt the other party. It's the Libertarians who believe instead in the power of the individual and that good in society comes from people, not from government.
@SheerPolitics @Bob_In_Boston Yeah, let me guess - you consider it "patriotic" to believe that nothing the country does is ever wrong, and speaking out against things we do is unpatriotic. It's people like you who make the rest of the world hate America. We do *plenty* of evil stuff, and it's the responsibility of the citizens to fix it, because we elected the politicians who do the evil things.
@notsofastthere @Bob_In_Boston @SheerPolitics Yeah, sorry, I didn't vote for them. Unfortunately the GOP leadership here in Massachusetts is borderline retarded, so we never win any elections and only have 11% enrollment. We just elected a new chairwomen so hopefully she can improve things. Another huge issue here in Mass is our chief counsel should be in jail - he's so slimy that he makes you want to leave the party.
@DeborahWells Love the McCain reference - perfect way to slip it in too!
"Stand with Rand" has legs - we have to make sure we keep that going! Much more meaningful then "Hope and Change", because Rand has already "stood" for us on numerous occassions!
@SheerPolitics That's bull - despite all the saber rattling about how bad it will be when other countries get nuclear weapons, only one evil country has ever used them.. and it's the United States.
@CaseyGeorge He just did!
@StephenSmith1 @Patrick Henry I know it was naive of me, but I was hoping that Texas would throw the TSA agents in jail for sexual assault, the same way you would anyone else who touched your junk without permission. But alas, like I said, Perry didn't have the 'nads to go through with it once the FAA said they would close down the airspace over Texas if they didn't back down. I would have called their bluff - there is no way the FAA could do that for more than a couple of days without HUGE repercussions from business who just needed to get there - the special interests would actually do some good for once!
2 years, 3 months ago on Nullification Victories!
@Patrick Henry @StephenSmith1 I've seen this misrepresented on a BUNCH of different websites and the Daily Show - it's not that a certain number of STATES have talked about succession, it's that some PEOPLE within those states have started petitions for succession. Those are two wildly different things as far as I'm concerned. If a state were to actually start preparing for succession that would be news. This? Not so much...
PS: I still be Texas will be first, but if Perry couldn't even hold his stones when he threatened to throw the TSA out, I don't see how he would stand up to the Feds on complete succession!
@StephenSmith1 @West Texan You are right on target - the answer isn't Republicans OR Democrats. The answer is finding good candidates (whatever letter they have after their name) and electing them to office. How do you determine who is a good candidate? Research how they voted when nobody was watching, and see if it lines up with their rhetoric. If what they say and what they actually did doesn't match (like Romney) then you know you can't trust them - they are immediately taken out of consideration. That's why Romney, Santorum and Gingrich were all non-starters as far as I'm concerned.
Then once you've taken the liars out, look for someone who agrees with your political philosophies. This isn't necessarily simple - for example there were votes that Congressman Ron Paul took during his 30+ years in office that I thought I didn't agree with initially, but once I read the actual content of the bills he was voting on, in every instance I understood why he voted the way he did, and most of the time, once I understood what was at stake, I agreed with him. That's what made Ron Paul the best candidate for me, and I'm doubly disappointed for him being cheated out of the nomination by the Romney campaign, as well as the fact that he's retiring from Congress this year. But it's our responsibility as Americans to find more good candidates and vote them into office!
@KansasBright @DorotheaTeasley @StephenSmith1 @mogul264
"18 USC § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
Interesting... I suspect if you were to try to bring charges against government officials for their actions against the constitution, they'd charge you with Sedition, and based on the age-old dictum of "whoever has the most guns makes the rules", you'd be on the wrong end of the stick. Even if a bunch of people fight back (like gun owners after Katrina) it's not likely they'd be successful since the government has been practicing "urban operations" so much lately. We've been seeing urban operations training in Boston alot more lately - they are getting ready for something, and I suspect when whatever that is comes down, it's going to start with firearms confiscation like after Katrina.
@DorotheaTeasley @Bob_In_Boston @StephenSmith1 @mogul264 Dorothea, it's you who needs to do a bit more research, because you are buying into party propaganda without understanding how the system actually works. The president can write as many EOs and signing statements as he wants, but the founders were careful to add checks and balances for *everything*. Even when a sitting president files an executive order or creates a new agency in the executive branch, it still needs to be FUNDED, and only the house can do that. While some agencies like the CIA use illegal funding mechanisms like drug or arms sales to fund themselves without house appropriations, they can mostly do that because they operate outside our borders. Most other executive agencies are funded by the house and so they can starve programs they don't like if they want to. They choose not to starve them because despite the lip service, republicans are just as bad as democrats, because they are all really on the same side...
@StephenSmith1 @mogul264 What you're talking about is "pure democracy" - also known as "mob rule". Our founders were actually terrified of pure democracy, which is why our country was established as a democratic republic, not a democracy. Just think - if we were a pure republic earlier in our history, then we would still have slavery - the majority of US citizens thought it was fine. It was a tireless minority that pushed for slaves to be considered men so that "all men are created equal" applied to them, and once that happened, slavery was eventually abolished. It wasn't because "the mob" decided we shouldn't have slaves anymore.
So sorry, but you can keep your pure democracy. Our current representatives suck and most should all be thrown in jail, but it's a much better system than pure democracy where 51% of the country can vote to remove the rights of people they don't like or give themselves huge benefits at the expense of others, until the country is bankrupt and overrun. Actually that second one kinda sounds like what we have anyway due to the lack of term limits in Congress!
@mogul264 The man you are looking for is Ron Paul. The only person on Congress who voted 100% according to the constitution and never went against his principles. He was there, you just didn't vote for him.