Peter

Rand Paul for President

Recommended Posts

I said Rand was running nine months ago. The proof was that he got rid of the recommended reading list on hie website. When you aim for the big one, you've got to dump ideological baggage like Rand, Mises, Hayek and Goldwater. The last thing you want is guilt by association with "extremists" and "purists" on the "far right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said Rand was running nine months ago. The proof was that he got rid of the recommended reading list on hie website. When you aim for the big one, you've got to dump ideological baggage like Rand, Mises, Hayek and Goldwater. The last thing you want is guilt by association with "extremists" and "purists" on the "far right."

crystal-ball.gif

We are all awed by your incredible hallucinations, dreams and prophecies...

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said Rand was running nine months ago. The proof was that he got rid of the recommended reading list on hie website. When you aim for the big one, you've got to dump ideological baggage like Rand, Mises, Hayek and Goldwater. The last thing you want is guilt by association with "extremists" and "purists" on the "far right."

This means he's a political whore. Good. All Presidents should be. The reason is they listen to feedback and don't go off on a destructive ideological tangent so sure they are so right.

--Brant

the more whore the better--to a point, then it gets worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One ideological tangent modern presidents have faithfully avoided is stubborn adherence to constitutional limitations. Woodrow Wilson said,

Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.

Freeing the President and Congress from the suffocating bonds of a centuries old document has allowed government to grow and thrive according to the needs of society and its constituent interest groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One ideological tangent modern presidents have faithfully avoided is stubborn adherence to constitutional limitations. Woodrow Wilson said,

Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.

Freeing the President and Congress from the suffocating bonds of a centuries old document has allowed government to grow and thrive according to the needs of society and its constituent interest groups.

Interesting that you selected a racist progressive to support your point, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all awed by your incredible hallucinations, dreams and prophecies...

I understand the "presentism" school of thought. If there is no recommended reading page now, there must never have been one. Ergo, those who claim to have seen it must be hallucinating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One ideological tangent modern presidents have faithfully avoided is stubborn adherence to constitutional limitations. Woodrow Wilson said,

Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission - in an era when "development," "evolution," is the scientific word - to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.

Freeing the President and Congress from the suffocating bonds of a centuries old document has allowed government to grow and thrive according to the needs of society and its constituent interest groups.

Interesting that you selected a racist progressive to support your point, don't you think?

To support the point that presidents have asserted the power to ignore the Constitution in order pursue non-constitutional ends, I shall in the future, in respect for your sensibilities, endeavor to point only to non-racist presidents who made such claims and omit the racists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To support the point that presidents have asserted the power to ignore the Constitution in order pursue non-constitutional ends, I shall in the future, in respect for your sensibilities, endeavor to point only to non-racist presidents who made such claims and omit the racists.

Clever.

That was not my point.

You used the plural.

Therefore, you know of more than one President that fits supports your argument.

So, who was the other one?

Or, if there were ten, then it is interesting that you picked the racist...

Just an observation.

A..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there was also Teddy. Oops, he doesn't count because of the Forum Rule of the Day that racist presidents may not be used to support the statement that presidents (plural) have asserted the power to ignore the Constitution in order to pursue non-constitutional ends.

Let's see. there was Lincoln. Oh rats, he said some racist things, too.

How about Obama? He believes in stretching the Constitution to serve his ends. Uh oh, Glenn Back says the president is a racist.

Apparently, if a president is 1) racist he cannot also 2) have said that the Constitution can be interpreted to serve the needs of the nation or the party in power.

By someone's criterion of logic 1) and 2) cannot be true at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come on. I think you meant "criteria of logic." There are innumerable ways to skin the logical horse.

--Brant

just had to interject myself, didn't I?

be a man; say you stand corrected so you aren't to the left of Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.

 

The field is all yours...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone up for a poll?

If the election comes down to Rand Paul versus Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?

At voting time you don't get to do anything but vote for one of them or abstain. So what would that choice be?

Mr. Rubber, meet Ms. Road.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come on. I think you meant "criteria of logic." There are innumerable ways to skin the logical horse.

I'm all ears and will let you count the many ways.

One, two, three, four . . .

--Brant

the genie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Rubber, meet Ms. Road.

:smile:

Michael

Nice to see safe sex advocated on OL...

I am ready to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, come on. I think you meant "criteria of logic." There are innumerable ways to skin the logical horse.

I'm all ears and will let you count the many ways.

One, two, three, four . . .

--Brant

the genie

You could be counting the same criterion twice. (Trust but verify.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He spoke in vague generalities designed to sound good to everyone that could mean anything to anyone. He said nothing particular about the most important issues of our time:

Out of control immigration.

The violation of rights by so-called civil rights laws.

Domestic spying (NSA etc) [correction, he did mention phone records, which understates the problem]

The so-called Patriot Act (TSA etc).

Mark

ARIwatch.com

Mark, those are important issues, especially the latter two. But I think the following is the really big existential threat to America, bigger too for the next decade than anything happening overseas with the wars underway or with nuclear proliferation threat within that time frame.*

I wonder how any of those in the running would deal with the problems associated with the real national debt. I heard Rand say in his speech today that we have to stop spending more than the revenue that comes in. That is fine to balance the yearly budget but doesn't address the 18 plus trillion dollars being held by US Treasury Bond holders who have to be paid interest each year or when the bonds become due.

. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This politician has been in office somewhat over four years. During that time he's talked a lot about patriot issues and attempted, in action, very, very little. Now when he runs for president suddenly the man's a patriot firebrand.

In 2011 I gave a lot of money to Ron Paul in his campaign for the Republican nomination, fully realizing he most probably wouldn't win, because I saw his campaign as an educational effort having consequences for future more successful campaigns by like-minded others. And then the little suck-up known as Rand Paul endorsed Romney, even as Ron Paul was still in the running.

He sucks up to Hispanics. He is not "one of our own," at any rate not one of mine.

Mark

ARIwatch.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Mark. As in previous elections, I will very likely sit this one out. Rand Paul is a craven opportunist who will say (or hide) what he needs to in order to get elected. Such a man will do the same in order to get re-elected. And at the end of his second term, will perform whatever compromise is required to get his party re-elected. Remember Paul is the same character who endorsed the re-election of the egregious Mitch McConnell instead of the relatively sound Tea Party candidate Matt Bevin.

In 1976, Ayn Rand wrote the following:

The Presidential election of 1976. I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word—i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose—see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.

If Rand can snub Reagan for his alliance with big government conservatives, I can do the same for a senator who is looking more and more like a Bush every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it ends up coming down to a choice between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton, all the libertarian and Objectivist purists are certainly free to vote for Hillary Clinton, or not vote at all and thus help Hillary, because Rand Paul is obviously not pure enough.

:smile:

Michael

Does every Objectivist know this, or am I just cynical, cantankerous, (fill-in-the-blank)? Know "what?" Know that no "pure" Objectivist could be elected to any important state or national office. :sad: Certainly NOT for President. Any association with Ayn Rand is and will continue to be for a very long time, the "kiss of death" for any candidate. Even if he or she presents the philosophy clearly (as against the MSM caricature, which seems to have a lock-hold on describing Ayn Rand), it will not substatntially change the degree or amount of negative reaction by the public and particularly the MSM (but also many innovaters,successful businessmen, such as many Silicon Valley types who are very leftwing, Progressive, etc, Go figure!) that the Objectivist candidate would receive. The church-going establishment has hardly begun to attack her. Nothing like the avalanche of opposition he would face if they (the Christians of any stripe) thought that an opponent and non-believer was going to be, or at least had a chance, of actually being elected. :wacko::angry::angry2:

As far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong), no self-described atheist has ever been elected to high public office in this country. A "closeted" atheist might have a chance, but he would have to, when discovered, deny his previously stated beliefs and any interest of agreement with Ayn Rand and certainly any agreement with atheism.(as the Republican candidate for Vice-President in 2012 quickly did).

This should not come as any surprise when one thinks about how radical Objectivism really is. This was best summarized by Rand when she announced that she was challenging the "last 2,000 years of Western cultural beliefs"' (or words to that effect).

So no "real" Objectivist (someone practicing and actively advocating Rand's philosophy) could be elected. Maybe, I'm wrong, but I would like to see this tested in real life. So if self-described Objectivists are looking for a "pure" 100% compatible Republican candidate,....they are going to have a very, very, long wait!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You vote for a politician so you won't feel bad if the other guy wins. In any national election your vote means nothing to the political corpus for if it's close the outcome will be determined by fraud. It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who counts the votes. (Stalin.) Generally the Democrats use fraud and the Republicans don't. Think Texas and Illinois for best results. Fraud made LBJ a US Senator and a vice-President who became a President. It took Kennedy's assassination, however, to grossly distort American political reality. Nixon would not have been a better President. Republican Presidents have generally done more harm and given a huge leg up if not door open to the bad things done in turn by whoever followed. Things have gotten so bad I sort of yearn for Clinton, but I'd never let the bastard sit next to me on an airplane. I'd ask him if he actually raped that woman when he was governor of Arkansas.

--Brant

not being cynical, just factual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You vote for a politician so you won't feel bad if the other guy wins.

Maybe. The last time I voted, my guy won. He was not in office more than three months when I got a bad case of voter's remorse.

I wondered why you shot him.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn was extremely disoriented about politics.

I believe that her distaste for politics is similar to her distaste for psychology as a "sewer."

She made fundamental errors in both areas.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...