Rand Paul speech in Iowa.

[Jimmy Higgins]

These are quotes copied from your guy's website. Should I go on?

It really won't matter. BB hasn't learned and seems quite desperate to support a person who doesn't qualify under his own Libertarian litmus test. We can look forward to 16 or so more months of OPs from BB about Rand Paul.

We can only hope Rand Paul drops out of the primaries tomorrow to save us from the repeated history of BB and his well away from accurate electoral thoughts on the most libertarian candidate and their prospective chances.

 

[laughing dog]

To be fair, I think Rand Paul is a more attractive Presidential candidate than his father ever was. But that is not setting the bar very high.

 

[boneyard bill]

Words are not what you think they are.

And the most arbitrary thing is the "rule of law".

I'd like to rebut what you said, but I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

What?

But language is something clear that doesn't require interpretation.

One problem is that your final statement above is complete nonsense. Language is not something clear and DOES require interpretation.

The other problem is that your previous statement doesn't even make enough sense to lend itself to interpretation.

 

[boneyard bill]

and the constitution is the fundamental law of the land.

And in Rand Paul land we think that the 14th Amendment ruined the Federal Constitution since it allows activist Federal judges to step all over states' rights to discriminate based on things like race, religion, and gender. We all know that only Congress should be so restricted and that states should be able to do whatever they want by way of popular vote.

Where has Rand Paul ever said that the Supreme Court should ignore the fourteenth amendment? That would contradict his position. You, like so many people on these boards want to post whatever you want to be true as if it were true. Which makes it extremely frustrating posting here anymore. Frankly, the quality of discussion on the political boards has declined precipitously over the last decade.

 

[boneyard bill]

This post and the three above it all demonstrate exactly what I said about Scombird's post. Is any of this serious discussion? No, it's just a bunch of guys ranting about their unexamined prejudices. There is neither rational argument here or correct statement of facts. All these posts are nonsense. What's the point of starting a thread on these boards if all it produces is mindless verbal diarrhea?

No one here is even willing to offer a suggestion on how Rand would fair against Hillary or even against other Republican candidates. That, apparently takes too much brain power when it is so much easier just to vomit up clichés.

 

[laughing dog]

This post and the three above it all demonstrate exactly what I said about Scombird's post. Is any of this serious discussion? No, it's just a bunch of guys ranting about their unexamined prejudices....

While you miss the irony of your complaint, I am sure most observers here do not.

Do you really think that Rand Paul is a worse candidate for the POTUS than his father? Given the unassailable fact that his father never came close to obtaining the nomination, it is a fair and rational statement Ron Paul was not a good candidate.

My guess is that Rand Paul would lose to Hillary Clinton. Your kneejerk adoration of anyone "Paul" blinds you to the obvious fact that neither Ron nor Rand Paul appeal to enough of the electorate to win a national election. Hell, Trump is outpolling Rand Paul now, and Trump is a lunatic.

 

[boneyard bill]

Perhaps your reading comprehension needs a little work. Not much there that Ford wrote about except cut taxes and cut spending. I haven't any idea what you mean by "overreaching screaming generality and boogie mans stuff style of end of the worlders". Rand is hardly an end of the worlder . I am. I think were headed for an economic crash very, very soon. But Rand has given no hint of believing that. And as for "screaming" and "style," I don't see how you get that from reading the speech. Listening to it is exactly what you would need to do.

Finally, neither you, nor anyone else has even addressed the main question I raised in my OP which is how much of a challenge does Rand Paul represent to Hillary in light of the fact that he is leading her in five states that Obama carried. (I think my OP said six states. That is wrong. He only claimed to lead her in five of those states.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps your reading comprehension needs a little work. Not much there that Ford wrote about except cut taxes and cut spending. I haven't any idea what you mean by "overreaching screaming generality and boogie mans stuff style of end of the worlders". Rand is hardly an end of the worlder . I am. I think were headed for an economic crash very, very soon. But Rand has given no hint of believing that. And as for "screaming" and "style," I don't see how you get that from reading the speech. Listening to it is exactly what you would need to do.

Finally, neither you, nor anyone else has even addressed the main question I raised in my OP which is how much of a challenge does Rand Paul represent to Hillary in light of the fact that he is leading her in five states that Obama carried. (I think my OP said six states. That is wrong. He only claimed to lead her in five of those states.

I can count, and my post is "one of the 3 above".

 

[boneyard bill]

These are quotes copied from your guy's website. Should I go on?

It really won't matter. BB hasn't learned and seems quite desperate to support a person who doesn't qualify under his own Libertarian litmus test. We can look forward to 16 or so more months of OPs from BB about Rand Paul.

We can only hope Rand Paul drops out of the primaries tomorrow to save us from the repeated history of BB and his well away from accurate electoral thoughts on the most libertarian candidate and their prospective chances.

Usual nonsense. I never claimed to be libertarian. That's a description others have applied to me. I disagree with Jason Harvestdancer on virtually every issue of fundamental philosophical significance. I do agree, however, that as a practical matter libertarians are often correct. We do need to rely more on free markets. It really is pointless to outlaw drugs when government can't keep drugs out of the prisons where they lock up drug offenders. Free speech, like free markets, is vital to a the advancement of a society.

As for Rand Paul, I have said very little this far. I'm not sure Rand will have as much significance as his father did on the national political debate. He may be less significant than his father. On the other hand, he might just win the nomination which his father never could have done.

 

[boneyard bill]

To be fair, I think Rand Paul is a more attractive Presidential candidate than his father ever was. But that is not setting the bar very high.

Speaking of a low bar, he is also a far more attractive candidate than Hillary (Not to mention the other Republican candidates). And that's the real issue I raised here that no one seems to comment on. How much of a challenge would Rand Paul be to Hillary. He's leading Hillary in five states that went for Obama. But really, Hillary's name recognition is extremely high while most of the general public doesn't really yet know the difference between Rand and his father. So as he becomes better known, he should do much better against Hillary than he is now.

 

[Ford]

Finally, neither you, nor anyone else has even addressed the main question I raised in my OP which is how much of a challenge does Rand Paul represent to Hillary in light of the fact that he is leading her in five states that Obama carried. (I think my OP said six states. That is wrong. He only claimed to lead her in five of those states.

It seems your chief beef here is that you posted a speech by your chosen candidate and are bent out of shape because nobody has yet come along and said "wow, Bill...you're right! That Rand Paul is a serious challenger for not just the GOP nomination, but a serious threat to that evil 'ole Hillary Clinton."


Sorry, but I just don't see it.


Correction. I'm not sorry at all. If the election were held today (as the cliche' goes) I can't see how the Senator from Kentucky would beat the 800 lb Clinton in the room.

 

[untermensche]

I'd like to rebut what you said, but I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

What?

But language is something clear that doesn't require interpretation.

One problem is that your final statement above is complete nonsense. Language is not something clear and DOES require interpretation.

The other problem is that your previous statement doesn't even make enough sense to lend itself to interpretation.

Have you ever read anything written by Noam Chomsky?

Not the political stuff, the linguistics.

You will see that a man who has closely studied language for decades says that words are not what you think they are.

You would have to be a little better read to understand.

 

[laughing dog]

To be fair, I think Rand Paul is a more attractive Presidential candidate than his father ever was. But that is not setting the bar very high.

Speaking of a low bar, he is also a far more attractive candidate than Hillary (Not to mention the other Republican candidates).

Maybe to you. Clearly the Republican party does not think so.

And that's the real issue I raised here that no one seems to comment on. How much of a challenge would Rand Paul be to Hillary. He's leading Hillary in five states that went for Obama. But really, Hillary's name recognition is extremely high while most of the general public doesn't really yet know the difference between Rand and his father. So as he becomes better known, he should do much better against Hillary than he is now.

These polls are pretty fickle. But why would think that the more Rand Paul opines, the he will do better? If and when he becomes viewed as a serious candidate, his record and his life and his views will be opened up for the world to see. There is just as much reason to think such a process will make him less attractive as it will make him more attractive.

 

[bilby]

This post and the three above it all demonstrate exactly what I said about Scombird's post. Is any of this serious discussion? No, it's just a bunch of guys ranting about their unexamined prejudices....

While you miss the irony of your complaint, I am sure most observers here do not.

Do you really think that Rand Paul is a worse candidate for the POTUS than his father? Given the unassailable fact that his father never came close to obtaining the nomination, it is a fair and rational statement Ron Paul was not a good candidate.

My guess is that Rand Paul would lose to Hillary Clinton. Your kneejerk adoration of anyone "Paul" blinds you to the obvious fact that neither Ron nor Rand Paul appeal to enough of the electorate to win a national election. Hell, Trump is outpolling Rand Paul now, and Trump is a lunatic.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the next President of the United States of America, as endorsed by boneyard bill:

Show

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It really won't matter. BB hasn't learned and seems quite desperate to support a person who doesn't qualify under his own Libertarian litmus test. We can look forward to 16 or so more months of OPs from BB about Rand Paul.

We can only hope Rand Paul drops out of the primaries tomorrow to save us from the repeated history of BB and his well away from accurate electoral thoughts on the most libertarian candidate and their prospective chances.

Usual nonsense. I never claimed to be libertarian.

Dude, you sleep with a stuff Ron Paul doll.

That's a description others have applied to me. I disagree with Jason Harvestdancer on virtually every issue of fundamental philosophical significance.

You could list them.

I do agree, however, that as a practical matter libertarians are often correct.

We do need to rely more on free markets.

That's right, you thought we should have let the global economy turn to rubble because of lack of regulation, because that would be the only way lack of regulation would work.

As for Rand Paul, I have said very little this far.

You have said you didn't like him much a while ago. And you have a history that can easily be extrapolated upon.

I'm not sure Rand will have as much significance as his father did on the national political debate.

Anyone remember my comment about about BB's inaccurate grasp of national politics? That would be a good example of it.

He may be less significant than his father. On the other hand, he might just win the nomination which his father never could have done.

Or he could become a kingmaker!

 

[boneyard bill]

Speaking of a low bar, he is also a far more attractive candidate than Hillary (Not to mention the other Republican candidates).

Maybe to you. Clearly the Republican party does not think so.

And that's the real issue I raised here that no one seems to comment on. How much of a challenge would Rand Paul be to Hillary. He's leading Hillary in five states that went for Obama. But really, Hillary's name recognition is extremely high while most of the general public doesn't really yet know the difference between Rand and his father. So as he becomes better known, he should do much better against Hillary than he is now.

These polls are pretty fickle. But why would think that the more Rand Paul opines, the he will do better? If and when he becomes viewed as a serious candidate, his record and his life and his views will be opened up for the world to see. There is just as much reason to think such a process will make him less attractive as it will make him more attractive.

I don't think the track record of polling shows that to be the case. People have an opinion about Hillary. A few months ago, very people had any opinion of Bernie Sanders because they hadn't heard of him. As he becomes better known he gains converts. The well-known candidate is nearly always at the top of his/her game early in the race. They have no where to go but down.

 

[boneyard bill]

While you miss the irony of your complaint, I am sure most observers here do not.

Do you really think that Rand Paul is a worse candidate for the POTUS than his father? Given the unassailable fact that his father never came close to obtaining the nomination, it is a fair and rational statement Ron Paul was not a good candidate.

My guess is that Rand Paul would lose to Hillary Clinton. Your kneejerk adoration of anyone "Paul" blinds you to the obvious fact that neither Ron nor Rand Paul appeal to enough of the electorate to win a national election. Hell, Trump is outpolling Rand Paul now, and Trump is a lunatic.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the next President of the United States of America, as endorsed by boneyard bill:

Show

I hardly have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone named Paul. There are many points where I disagree with him just as I disagreed with his father on many points. I am closer to Rand philosophically than I am to Ron, who was more a knee-jerk libertarian. But that raises the an important defect in your thinking. You assume that father and son are the same. They are not. Ron was clearly inside the libertarian camp and didn't shun that label. Rand is more of a constitutional conservative. He is not in the libertarian straight-jacket nearly as much as his father. That's why I think he will do better.

Ron forthrightly expressed a foreign policy of non-intervention, for example. Many people think such a policy is entirely impractical in our modern world. Rand doesn't say, "Don't intervene ever." He says "Intervene less, and intervene smarter. Many of interventions have been counter-productive."

He should have a broader appeal than his father. However, I have to admit, Ron was going up against a weaker field than we see today. Aside from Romney and Ron Paul, the 2012 GOP field was pretty much a bunch of clowns.

 

[boneyard bill]

Usual nonsense. I never claimed to be libertarian.

Dude, you sleep with a stuff Ron Paul doll.

That's a description others have applied to me. I disagree with Jason Harvestdancer on virtually every issue of fundamental philosophical significance.

You could list them.

I do agree, however, that as a practical matter libertarians are often correct.

We do need to rely more on free markets.

That's right, you thought we should have let the global economy turn to rubble because of lack of regulation, because that would be the only way lack of regulation would work.

As for Rand Paul, I have said very little this far.

You have said you didn't like him much a while ago. And you have a history that can easily be extrapolated upon.

I'm not sure Rand will have as much significance as his father did on the national political debate.

Anyone remember my comment about about BB's inaccurate grasp of national politics? That would be a good example of it.

He may be less significant than his father. On the other hand, he might just win the nomination which his father never could have done.

Or he could become a kingmaker!

I wouldn't back off of any of the quotes you have posted here and can hardly see the relevance of your comments about them much less regard your comments as some kind of refutation.

 

[laughing dog]

I hardly have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone named Paul......
He should have a broader appeal than his father. However, I have to admit, Ron was going up against a weaker field than we see today. Aside from Romney and Ron Paul, the 2012 GOP field was pretty much a bunch of clowns.

Nothing there consistent with a "kneejerk adoration of anyone named Paul".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dude, you sleep with a stuff Ron Paul doll.

That's a description others have applied to me. I disagree with Jason Harvestdancer on virtually every issue of fundamental philosophical significance.

You could list them.

I do agree, however, that as a practical matter libertarians are often correct.

We do need to rely more on free markets.

That's right, you thought we should have let the global economy turn to rubble because of lack of regulation, because that would be the only way lack of regulation would work.

As for Rand Paul, I have said very little this far.

You have said you didn't like him much a while ago. And you have a history that can easily be extrapolated upon.

I'm not sure Rand will have as much significance as his father did on the national political debate.

Anyone remember my comment about about BB's inaccurate grasp of national politics? That would be a good example of it.

He may be less significant than his father. On the other hand, he might just win the nomination which his father never could have done.

Or he could become a kingmaker!

I wouldn't back off of any of the quotes you have posted here and can hardly see the relevance of your comments about them much less regard your comments as some kind of refutation.

That is to be expected from boneyard "ron paul can be a kingmaker" bill.