Rand Paul Announcing Presidential Run!!!!!

Sick of Bush and clinton does not mean stupid enough to vote for Rand.

No, I don't think that at all, and not at all the reason I believe him to be completely-over-the-top-batshit-crazy. It's just that his stance on gays, on women's issues, pretty much prove that he doesn't really give a shit about rights at all. It's proof of his dishonesty, much as his campaign using foreign stock photo models on the website while claiming that they're Americans who support Paul. And starting his own, totally bogus ophthalmological board, so that he could claim to be board certified. And all that plagiarism. He's an all around lying sack of shit. And the crazy part? He's deluded enough to believe that sane people aren't going to spot his plethora of lies.

Oh, and this. Real honest.

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm

Hmmmmm.......

-Voted against a bill to end flag desecration

-Voted NO on defining marriage as between one man and one woman

-Voted NO on making the patriot act permanent

-Opposes the death penalty

-Sponsored a bill allowing states to legalize industrial hemp

Not quite the raging extremist that lefties like Dinner and his shitty sites are trying to portray him as.

Clinton has already been a national security disaster. Investors Business Daily article.

Hillary Clinton's private email server was a spy magnet for the Russian, Chinese, Iranian and other intelligence services, say current and former intelligence officials.

<snip>

"In all, this is a counterintelligence disaster of truly epic proportions, not to mention that, since Clinton admitted she did not use higher-classification email systems at all" — systems like SIPR and JWICS, Schindler said — "we have to assume some bleed-over into her unsecured private email too, which makes this even worse."

SIPR is the Secret Internet Protocol Router network that the Department of Defense runs to ensure secret communications for the U.S. military, other agencies and certain allies. JWICS is the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System for top-secret government communication. Both provide secure communications for the State Department and secretary of state. Clinton's private server was not protected by the Department of Homeland Security's Einstein intrusion detection system, which relies on NSA systems, for official State Department emails.

"She may have deleted 30,000 e-mails before turning her files over to the State Department, but that doesn't mean that the Russians and the Chinese don't have them," said Michelle Van Cleave, former U.S. National Counterintelligence Executive.

Others say that the potential damage to U.S. national security is so grave that the FBI should seize the server and conduct a forensic analysis to determine the extent of foreign penetration. That analysis would be part of what is called a damage assessment, which is routine after any suspected security breach.​

She's currently being sued under RICO, and it seems America's enemies have all the dirt on her. She sacrificed US national security to protect her $2 billion dollar scam operation.

I doubt any other candidate from either party could make that claim.

You really should have that reading disability treated.

Rand Paul keeps declaring himself to be a libertarian but he isn't.

Why do you have such difficulty following a simple sentence?

Don't forget Trump "The birther king" and Mr 9-9-9 ("Jesus gets 10% so the government should only get 9%).

So is this an honest mistake or are you deliberately lying?

Do you really not understand that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are two different people? My link was about Rand Paul and now you post a link about his daddy to somehow disprove my link? WTF? Are you an idiot or do you think everyone else is an idiot not to notice such dishonest shit?

You do know we are talking about rand paul, right? If you do not have anyuthing to say about rand pal perhaps you would be looking for another thread.

You are stupid as a dirt sandwich

Though it is poor form, the two of them both fell from the same fucknut tree.

at T.R. posting info about Ron to defend Rand. But in some ways, it fits. It's a big part of Rand's strategy to convince his dad's fans that he is the same guy. And then he spouts his racist and anti-women shit to try for another group of right-wing extremists.

It's called making a mistake. However unlike you I admit to it instead of having a flame out and going into hiding for six months

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm

- Supports convicted felons regaining their right to vote
- Opposes unlawful searches
-Favors legalizing medical marijuana
-Stands against jailing nonviolent criminals
-Favors ending the Cuban embargo
-Is against the Patriot Act
-Opposed Iraq war
-Opposed to war in Syria


Nope. Still not a crazy extremist. Hell he's less extreme than Obama when it comes to war.

Those are all fine positions, but he has also said things in contrast to some of them. Some might call that political opportunism, adjusting your position to match the audience.

If Obama pre and post election set any precedent, then a candidate should just say whatever he wants. Afterwards, his electors can just say "Duh he was running for president and now he can't keep his promises due to Congress. Besides, he's a politician! I'm shocked, SHOCKED that blah blah blah..."

I have a very good record for admitting when I got something wrong or made a mistake.

Why do you always lie in a partisan way?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

Obama actually has the best record of any recent President with 50% of promises filled and 24% compromised on. Go ahead and look up some of the other records.

I think Ramen's problem is that he has yet to listen to what Obama actually says. It's all about black Jesus in his mind, so he doesn't have a clue whether the President has kept to the same statements he ran on.

Look at his voting record and actions taken that support the statements posted by T.R.

Look at his speeches and history of pandering with contrary statements.

TR, if it was an honest mistake then how come your bullshit detector didn't go off seeing so many of the bullet points were the exact opposite of Rand Paul's publicly stated positions? Do you always just cut and paste stuff without even doing a basic smell test on it first?

I used to do that but after getting burned a few times I now try to do a basic vetting of stuff before I post it. It might be a good idea for you to do the same.

Politifact is pretty bad when it comes to their investigation of the "truth".

Here's an example of how politifact uses their bias call a statement a "lie".

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...ul-says-40000-new-laws-were-put-books-first-/

The articles claims that Ron Paul lied about there being 40,000 laws on the books in the country. The article says that's a lie because those laws were in the states, not the Federal government. Doesn't matter Politifact, the laws are still on the books, therefore, not false.

I don't care about speeches, I care about actions. Obama makes a lot of great speeches as do used car salesmen, but in both instances, you'll end up with a lemon.

So you think it's wise to trust a liar? I'm not sure why I should be surprised by that, given your hero worship of some of Wordforge's biggest liars.

I don't think Rand Paul is a liar.

Well, you sure were about his speech yesterday.

So which of his actions do you admire? Try not to confuse him with his old man the way T.R did.

I thought it was a good speech, but it needs to be backed up by actions. In many ways he has backed it up with actions. He's come out in support for school choice, he's worked with democrats to restore voting rights to felons, he worked with KY state legislatures to legalize hemp and has been a big supporter of legalizing hemp nationally, he voted against the Patriot Act, he voted against increases in spending. I could go on, but you get the picture. Rand Paul doesn't't just make good speeches, his actions speak for themselves.

Yes and the current occupant of the White House has NEVER done that.

Hate to burst your bubble but there isn't a single candidate that ever ran for president who never pandered.

It's pretty well known that some pandering is necessary to win the nomination. The extreme religious right has to be told how great God is and how being gay is against their religion, but we should be tolerant. He'll have to go hunting with a shotgun to show he supports gun rights. He'll have to make speeches with military, firemen, and police to show support for those communities and to show he's tough on crime. He'll have to go to some local pub in Iowa NH and SC to show he's just a regular guy who likes to throw back a few beers. Those are just things you have to do when running for President. The left has their equivalent. I Don't like it, but I don't mind it, it's been going on too long to really change it.

School choice, voting rights for felons, and legalizing weed sound good on the state level, but they won't play on a national level unless you (A) institute a nationwide school system, (B) apply federal regulations to all prison systems, and (C) legalize weed on a national level.

And you know what you need to accomplish those things? Moar Evul Gubmint. Which entails more spending, not less. So there goes the "cut spending" plank of his platform.

As for repealing the PATRIOT Act...yes, long overdue. I could get behind him on that.

So now if he can just figure out how to implement those state issues on a national level without spending a dime, and if he can just stop pandering to the religious right in terms of gay rights, reproductive rights, and "we need a religious revival in this country," pretending to be a board-certified physician when he isn't, and falsifying his "supporter list" with photos cribbed from the Internet, he might make a viable candidate...after the old man croaks and he can crawl out from under his shadow.

Get back to me in '36.

Why would you do those things on the national level when the goal is a return to limited government is the goal? Most of what Rand stands for and supports would have to be handled on the state level and I think that's what Republicans are looking for.