Of course, I already totally agreed with him as my posts here indicate.
He is the very well-known SouthernAvenger. And that has kept his 6500 views of this video at 547 Likes and 344 Dislikes.
Anyone else would have had a lot more dislikes. But, unless the Horde just wants to quit and go home and stay home, they'd better listen and think hard about where we go when Ron retires in January.
Hopefully, we'll be watching Kurt Bills and Ted Cruz take the oath as new senators. And Liljenthal of UT.
unless the Horde just wants to quit and go home and stay home
"the Horde". You're not a real supporter of Ron Paul's movement, are you? -- no more than his son, Rand. You're both mastodans who seem to view it as something to be compromised, culled, and then co-opted by Neocon RINOs -- much like the so-called "Tea Party" was. Ron Paul isn't the mascot of the "Tea Party". Just ask them. He's the Champion of the Constitution. Like a commenter at the video said: "Ron Paul wasn't looking to his family to carry the torch [My note: as Rand hasn't], he was looking towards us."
Rand's voting record clearly shows he is no neocon.
I have liked what Rand has actually done. Prior to this endorsement of Romney, he had exceeded my expectations since taking office. I remember the clip where he gave some DC bureaucrat crap about how his toilet didn't work, blaming it on federal toilet regulations. He also blasted people for not following the Constitution, and he's not controlled by Israel. He's been a very outspoken supporter of Liberty and the Constitution.
But GreyLmist is right. What's the rush to endorse Romney, if indeed that is what he thinks is the right thing to do (!) before Tampa? The only explanation I can fathom is that he is indeed doing it for some political reason that we don't know about. Hopefully it's a good reason, but it's extremely hard to think there could be one. Which pretty much makes it a bad political move since it's alienated a lot of Rand's support base. You just can't going around doing that!!
I have liked what Rand has actually done. Prior to this endorsement of Romney, he had exceeded my expectations since taking office. I remember the clip where he gave some DC bureaucrat crap about how his toilet didn't work, blaming it on federal toilet regulations. He also blasted people for not following the Constitution, and he's not controlled by Israel. He's been a very outspoken supporter of Liberty and the Constitution.
I supported him, too, but there have been Neocon-RINO traits exhibited by him before this. A March RINO example for expansion of government tyranny:
US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law By Tom Carter 3 March 2012
A bill passed Monday in the US House of Representatives and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony—a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration—to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the “anti-Occupy” law, but its implications are far broader.
The bill—H.R. 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”—was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.
The big hallmark of Neocons is their Warmongering Interventionist Foreign Policy and Rand Paul has displayed several examples of that: Afghanistan funding; keep Gitmo open; Iran threat-rhetoric and sanctions; keep the threat of nuclear weapons usage by us on the table, which his father calls genocidal.
Rand Paul won his Kentucky seat for the Senate by running against a Neocon candidate's agenda. Maybe now he thinks he doesn't need to win Kentucky's votes again, in a Senate race or a Presidential race.
This report implies rather than clearly states Rand voted for the bill. Unanimous consent may have been a voice vote or something, and Rand may not have been there. Or the report itself may be just wrong.
If he's voted for such things, I'd prefer to see it clearly recorded on official record before I'd disown him. Misinformation is nothing new.
This report implies rather than clearly states Rand voted for the bill. Unanimous consent may have been a voice vote or something, and Rand may not have been there. Or the report itself may be just wrong.
If he's voted for such things, I'd prefer to see it clearly recorded on official record before I'd disown him. Misinformation is nothing new.
It's often more difficult for me to locate an official log of Senate votes on legislation than roll calls of House votes but that's not the only report of it as passing by unanimous consent of the Senate. I think unanimous consent means without objection by anyone present (a Ref.) -- no objection, no vote taken so as to pass something quickly; usually (or supposedly so) for non-controversial matters -- which that definitely wasn't non-controversial. If Rand Paul wasn't there to object, why not? I may have missed a statement from him on that and the Senate's passage but don't recall one. His father managed to vote against it in the House, busy though he's been as a campaigning candidate for President.