Title: The Man That Shot Liberty In The Back- Rand Paul (watch!) Source:
[None] URL Source:[None] Published:Jun 8, 2012 Author:. Post Date:2012-06-08 10:51:35 by christine Keywords:None Views:13080 Comments:107
I could only stand about 1 minute of his sniveling. I despise whiners. I just hate them with a passion.
It's not over.
This is what happens when one depends on another man (or woman) to make things right, when that person should take personal responsibility to shape their own destinies, and quit depending on others. If everyone would do that, there would be no more psychopathic leaders, because these psychopaths depend on others to depend on them.
So now he is all sad. Poor baby needs a pacifier. Sucks to be him. He is no better than a sheep. In fact, imo, he is even lower than a sheep.
I could only stand about 1 minute of his sniveling. I despise whiners. I just hate them with a passion.
It's not over.
I agree. I guess I'd say let those who are most disappointed have a bit of grief. But that is no reason to quit. We have made tremendous progress and the future will hold many more opportunities, particularly as the overseas empire and its financial burden turns into a political and fiscal shooting war with the retiring Baby Boomers. And these poor kids who were sold into paying all the bills for it before they were even born; you know they aren't going to tolerate that forever because they want to have kids and a house too.
Just as we are seeing the beginning of the end of the big public employee union goons in recent news, this fight I am describing is coming much sooner than later. The Empire vs. the Boomers. But you can't win if you desert the battle. History is not made by the fickle or the timid.
good posts, both of you. you make some very astute points. there's one point that i think you're missing here and, that is, that many of us are disappointed again in what we see as a lack of honesty here not that we expected Ron Paul to be our saviour. i think all of us on 4um are more realistic than that. this is a repeat of 2008 when Ron Paul pulled out just before the Texas primary. we were led to believe that he had a delegate strategy. now with this, he's pulled the rug out from under all those who worked to become delegates and who planned to cast a vote for him at the convention. he pulled up short again and i am certain that that it was not a sudden decision.
imo, he and Rand both owe his many, many supporters an immediate explanation.
and one more thing...how is it after all the criticism of Romney heretofore can the Pauls suddenly do a 180 and endorse him (assuming Ron plans to also)? that to me is an abandonment of his principles.
we were led to believe that he had a delegate strategy.
Don't be led. People should be their own leader. That's how I see it. People are responsible for their own interests. People give their personal power over to others so they can be led.
I;m just as guilty as anyone else in that I too was supportive of Paul, because I (mistakenly) believed he was our last hope to turn things around. But the way I see it now, things can't be turned around, and it doesn't matter who wins a (s)election.
Not to get anyone to think that I like falling on my sword... but I made the mistake of believing that the answers were outside of me, not inside. These rat bastards are masters at getting people to think only of the external. They are not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. It has kept them in power because it keeps the citizens focused on what the psychopaths are doing instead of what the self is doing.
We could end this in a week, if a majoelrity told these monsters to drop dead, and meant it. But people being people, it might take a little more time than that.
and one more thing...how is it after all the criticism of Romney heretofore can the Pauls suddenly do a 180 and endorse him (assuming Ron plans to also)? that to me is an abandonment of his principles.
I don't believe he had any principles in the first place. He did it because it benefits him, not his constituents.
He did it because it benefits him, not his constituents.
Yes.
But the Senate is all about being an insider, amassing power and favors so you can do more (in Rand's case, less) for all the party's constituents.
It's easy to criticize Rand but you don't have all that many examples of American government shrinking. It's grown like a cancer rather steadily except for a few brief contractions following major wars or banking failures or the business cycle downturns. Certainly, other than Truman's sharp cutback of government after WW II, there are few examples of American government shrinking at all in the modern era, since WW I.
But the Senate is all about being an insider, amassing power and favors so you can do more (in Rand's case, less) for all the party's constituents.
It's easy to criticize Rand but you don't have all that many examples of American government shrinking. It's grown like a cancer rather steadily except for a few brief contractions following major wars or banking failures or the business cycle downturns. Certainly, other than Truman's sharp cutback of government after WW II, there are few examples of American government shrinking at all in the modern era, since WW I.
That is essentially, stripped down, an "ends justify the means" argument.
"Everybody does it" is no different ethically from "I vas chust followink hoarders".
The problem with returning government to its rightful bounds is that Somebody has to do it, and if Nobody does it, then Everybody loses.
That is essentially, stripped down, an "ends justify the means" argument.
These arguments grow circular and a little tiresome.
People love to rant about the Constitution and the Founders, none more than Ron Paul. But what is often neglected is exactly how the Founders performed once the Constitution was ratified as they became the early congressmen and senators and served as president.
Constitutionalism isn't quite so neat once you have politicians and lawyers involved. It's never neat, never pretty.
That is essentially, stripped down, an "ends justify the means" argument.
These arguments grow circular and a little tiresome.
People love to rant about the Constitution and the Founders, none more than Ron Paul. But what is often neglected is exactly how the Founders performed once the Constitution was ratified as they became the early congressmen and senators and served as president.
Constitutionalism isn't quite so neat once you have politicians and lawyers involved. It's never neat, never pretty.
And I never did say it was neat or pretty, but I would like to think that I have fundamental principles which I will not compromise.
And though the founding fathers were less than perfect the most ingenious thing about the Constitution was that they recognized that which is why we were to be a nation of laws not of men.
Neither does imperfection in man relieve us of trying to live up to and promote the ideals which are fundamental to a free society. There is no such thing as "limited free speech" or "kinda' honest elections".
All of these are issues which are old territory in philosophy. The reality is that while we may not achieve absolute perfection striving for an ideal, and defending principles, which serve the greatest good is the basis of a free and just society.
To throw up ones hands and say that because men, and women, are less than perfect and therefore we should accept compromise and dilution of fundamental principles is to lose before you begin.
"Whenever you decide that you are willing to settle for second best that is what your wind up with in life, I find." ~ John Fitzgerald Kennedy
People love to rant about the Constitution and the Founders, none more than Ron Paul. But what is often neglected is exactly how the Founders performed once the Constitution was ratified as they became the early congressmen and senators and served as president.
What's neglected more is mention of the means they provided in the Constitution for enforcement of it to arrest insurrectionists against it.