Rand Paul, thrilled with Palin endorsement 2-3-10

Ron Paul was reluctant to reject Sarah Palin's endorsement of his son, and mostly tried to change the subject.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Good article on Paul vs Palin relating to the tea party. What it comes down to is that Ron Paul has proved himself by calling the economic mess we are in for a long time. He has fought the fight for a while speaking against the Federal Reserve and all the bailouts. NOT PALIN. Not even Rand Paul. Palin was for the bailouts, so as far as I'm concerned she's out. Rand has yet to prove himself.

reply to post by LordT

the only difference is, is that contrary to your belief the majority of business aren't the large corporations. Small and mid sized business are by far the majority. The people that put that small/mid sized business together probably did bust his butt getting to where he got.

this off topic but, I never said I believed that most businesses are large corporations.

With socialist governments all business is run by the same "corporation"

I'm pretty sure yer talking communism here.

read up.. www.wisegeek.com...

americans are pretty funny, they support gratuitous salaries for people at the top but not socialism, when probably some form of socialism would benefit the vast majority of people in this country.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox


What it isn't is a direct democracy. And there's a very good reason for that; if the American citizenry were casting ballots for everything that needs a vote, we would be doing absolutely nothing else with our time.

Because allowing a direct vote by the people on large issues that would require the spending of a huge chunk of the people's money, a further unconstitutional expansion of the role of the federal government or just simply an issue that lessens and individual freedom of choice comes up about every 30 seconds.

The People get to vote on minor things, like which person that is going to be selling you out and screwing you over, but not if you are going to be sold out and screwed over.

That is the real difference between pure democracy and a democratically elected constitutional republic. It is kinda like saying you are going to have sex tonight but someone else gets to choose with whom.

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


Show me one country that has a successful socialist government. The government is a "central" power in a socialist society. America by way of the constitution prohibits "central" powered government.

reply to post by Locoman8


well the definition of socialist seems to change depending on which country you ask, but there are plenty of socialist countries that are doing quite well.
socialisms success

and according to your definition wouldn't the USA already be a socialist country, the article seems to concur.

there seems to be this huge fear of socialism when in fact we already seem to be living in some form of it. Also, people from countries with socialist programs seem to have no issue with it. It's not hard to find countries that are dabbling in socialism and making a success out of it for their people.

now what does any of this have to do with palin supporting paul?

The ears God gave me will not suffer me to listen to even the VOICE of sara palin. It's so cut and dry, worse than a CD. I am having the same problem with a newcomer in my life, someone who is accelerating time for nefarious reasons. She walks like a truck driver, and uses those melodic inflections, screechy, to sell her cons as if it's a spiritual must have.

Why is ron paul's name being morphed in to this thread??? I cannot see rp tolerating the palin powerseeker.

reply to post by davidmann


this thread is about rand paul, and how he is happy to receive palins endorsement. did you watch the video in the OP?

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


Seriously, I know about the current socialist programs in this country. Welfare, food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. The bailouts and stimulus along with the future health care bill dig us deeper into a socialist society. What's more, the people of my generation will not see a penny of Social Security seeing that they are bankrupted in SSI funds. Many welfare and food stamp recepients are people unwilling to work. Thanks to Carter and his "War on Poverty" we have dug America into a deeper hole. Before Carter was in office, the poverty level in America was around 17%. Today, the poverty level is around 17%. Government made, socialist programs do not work. If people got up and worked for a change, we'd all be fine. If our money had solid backing, we'd all be fine. We wouldn't need a socialist program for the "less-fortunate". Socialism simply does not work because it eventually leads to centralized government power and fascism. Welcome to the "nanny state".

Also consider that these programs which cost taxpayers a butt-load of money to keep up will eventually bankrupt this country. Socialist societies are too costly for nations to keep up.