Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Discuss.

Make that filibuster.

He is too principled to reinvent himself to win the Republican nomination.

Could we get rid of all politicians and start over?

He's too white and male for the MSM.

I'd consider Paul if I feel like Congress can keep his libertarianism in check. It's good in small doses, but I don't want him vetoing everything in sight while Congress doesn't have the votes to override it.

∞∞∞ wrote:I'd consider Paul if I feel like Congress can keep his libertarianism in check. It's good in small doses, but I don't want him vetoing everything in sight while Congress doesn't have the votes to override it.

Why not? What has Congress recently passed that has even remotely benefited the masses?

I votes yes, but he has no shot. The repubs are going to keep tripping over themselves for the next 3 years and Hillary will easily win it in 2016.

One of his dad's biggest issues has been his age. And he's batshit crazy on a some issues. If I'm not mistaken, Ron either leads or is at the top of voting against nearly every bill that's been presented to him.

Being Libertarian these days in this Congress is noble, but a wasted vote. I think more people, if they could see past donks and conks, would more readily identify with many Libertarian tenets. But this is America, and we're fascinated by shiny things and empty promises from the right and left.

SDHornet wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:I'd consider Paul if I feel like Congress can keep his libertarianism in check. It's good in small doses, but I don't want him vetoing everything in sight while Congress doesn't have the votes to override it.

Why not? What has Congress recently passed that has even remotely benefited the masses?

I votes yes, but he has no shot. The repubs are going to keep tripping over themselves for the next 3 years and Hillary will easily win it in 2016.

Institutional Republicans would as soon have Hildabeast in office than allow the Ron Pauls of the world to take over.

The real question should be would Rand Paul be worse than what we have now or had before?

As more people realize what an inefficient, crass, and damaging juggernaut our government has become, they will realize that a more libertarian culture in Washington is exactly what we need.

Christie will have him for lunch.

AZGrizFan wrote:

SDHornet wrote: Why not? What has Congress recently passed that has even remotely benefited the masses?

I votes yes, but he has no shot. The repubs are going to keep tripping over themselves for the next 3 years and Hillary will easily win it in 2016.

Institutional Republicans would as soon have Hildabeast in office than allow the Ron Pauls of the world to take over.

Yup...which is why institutional republicans have become completely irrelevant for the younger generations.

bluehenbillk wrote:Christie will have him for lunch.

It'll take a while...Christie can only handle about 8-10 oz at a sitting these days, right?

CID1990 wrote:The real question should be would Rand Paul be worse than what we have now or had before?

As more people realize what an inefficient, crass, and damaging juggernaut our government has become, they will realize that a more libertarian culture in Washington is exactly what we need.

Wow, what a utopian view you have....what people are realizing is that they can get the government to TAKE from the makers and GIVE to the takers without the "people" ever lifting a finger, just to appease the masses and buy votes....and THAT is why the Ron Pauls of the world will never be relevant in a national election.

AZGrizFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:The real question should be would Rand Paul be worse than what we have now or had before?

As more people realize what an inefficient, crass, and damaging juggernaut our government has become, they will realize that a more libertarian culture in Washington is exactly what we need.

Wow, what a utopian view you have....what people are realizing is that they can get the government to TAKE from the makers and GIVE to the takers without the "people" ever lifting a finger, just to appease the masses and buy votes....and THAT is why the Ron Pauls of the world will never be relevant in a national election.

And while that has gone on both sides have increased the size of government, and its spending, at break neck speeds. Well done establishment politicians.

I hope a Tea Party nutcase never gets close to the White House.


Sent from my iPhone

Ibanez wrote:I hope a Tea Party nutcase never gets close to the White House.


Sent from my iPhone

I'd take a Tea Party nutcase over what we have now any day of the week and 5 times on Wednesday.

AZGrizFan wrote:

CID1990 wrote:The real question should be would Rand Paul be worse than what we have now or had before?

As more people realize what an inefficient, crass, and damaging juggernaut our government has become, they will realize that a more libertarian culture in Washington is exactly what we need.

Wow, what a utopian view you have....what people are realizing is that they can get the government to TAKE from the makers and GIVE to the takers without the "people" ever lifting a finger, just to appease the masses and buy votes....and THAT is why the Ron Pauls of the world will never be relevant in a national election.

...more like take from the makers and give to the bankers...

SDHornet wrote:

Ibanez wrote:I hope a Tea Party nutcase never gets close to the White House.


Sent from my iPhone

I'd take a Tea Party nutcase over what we have now any day of the week and 5 times on Wednesday.

They are anti-gov't. If you aren't with them, you're against them. If you're bi-partisan, you're against them and the enemy. If you compromise, you lack principles and are the enemy. They are xenophobic. They want to control people but don't want to be controlled themselves (abortion and gay rights). They use faith based, radical scriptural literal-ism in a secular government. They ignore accepted and proved science and facts. I don't want a person like that in power.

Ibanez wrote:

SDHornet wrote: I'd take a Tea Party nutcase over what we have now any day of the week and 5 times on Wednesday.

They are anti-gov't. If you aren't with them, you're against them. If you're bi-partisan, you're against them and the enemy. If you compromise, you lack principles and are the enemy. They are xenophobic. They want to control people but don't want to be controlled themselves (abortion and gay rights). They use faith based, radical scriptural literal-ism in a secular government. They ignore accepted and proved science and facts. I don't want a person like that in power.

Still blaming everything on the Bush administration I see...

houndawg wrote:

Ibanez wrote: They are anti-gov't. If you aren't with them, you're against them. If you're bi-partisan, you're against them and the enemy. If you compromise, you lack principles and are the enemy. They are xenophobic. They want to control people but don't want to be controlled themselves (abortion and gay rights). They use faith based, radical scriptural literal-ism in a secular government. They ignore accepted and proved science and facts. I don't want a person like that in power.

Still blaming everything on the Bush administration I see...

Republicans shouldn't have allowed the Tea Party to hijack the party. However, to a lesser extent, many Democrats act the same way. It's horrible. We have ZERO statesmen. None. We have career, political hacks like Graham, Pelosi, Reid, McCain, etc...

Ibanez wrote:

SDHornet wrote: I'd take a Tea Party nutcase over what we have now any day of the week and 5 times on Wednesday.

They are anti-gov't. If you aren't with them, you're against them. If you're bi-partisan, you're against them and the enemy. If you compromise, you lack principles and are the enemy. They are xenophobic. They want to control people but don't want to be controlled themselves (abortion and gay rights). They use faith based, radical scriptural literal-ism in a secular government. They ignore accepted and proved science and facts. I don't want a person like that in power.

Sweet Jesus that is a huge swing and a miss.

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Wow, what a utopian view you have....what people are realizing is that they can get the government to TAKE from the makers and GIVE to the takers without the "people" ever lifting a finger, just to appease the masses and buy votes....and THAT is why the Ron Pauls of the world will never be relevant in a national election.

...more like take from the makers and give to the bankers...

That's exactly what I said.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: They are anti-gov't. If you aren't with them, you're against them. If you're bi-partisan, you're against them and the enemy. If you compromise, you lack principles and are the enemy. They are xenophobic. They want to control people but don't want to be controlled themselves (abortion and gay rights). They use faith based, radical scriptural literal-ism in a secular government. They ignore accepted and proved science and facts. I don't want a person like that in power.

Sweet Jesus that is a huge swing and a miss.

Is it? Have you not listened to any Tea Party candidates or attended one of their rallies? You obviously haven't.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Sweet Jesus that is a huge swing and a miss.

Is it? Have you not listened to any Tea Party candidates or attended one of their rallies? You obviously haven't.

You kidding me? Z listens to tea party speeches while he chokes the pope.

Guns and Conks. Conks and guns.