• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Rand Paul vs. King Barack

Mike

Well-known member
By: John Hayward
1/15/2013 03:30 PM


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) gave an interview to the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he rather strongly denounced President Obama’s threats to impose gun control through executive orders. ”I’m against having a king,” said the Senator. ”I think having a monarch is what we fought the American Revolution over, and someone who wants to bypass the Constitution, bypass Congress, that’s someone who wants to act like a king or monarch.”



To be more specific, the notion of suffering rule without representation was a big sticking point with the authors of the Declaration of Independence. Speaking of kings and monarchs is a valid shorthand way of expressing the notion that unitary government is the problem… even if the absolute ruler has to stand for election every four years, and even when he’s limited to two terms in office.

RELATED: Trump: If GOP doesn’t hold firm ‘country will go to hell’

Bypassing Congress is an aggressive method of ruling without representation. It’s supposed to be difficult to force sweeping national agendas upon a free people. The modern appetite for swift, “efficient,” all-powerful centralized government is a denial of that principle. It’s tough to find issues where Rand Paul agrees with, say, Harry Reid, isn’t it? Good. That difficulty defines the boundaries of what the federal government is supposed to be doing. Battles over the extension of those boundaries should be nice and vicious. The American people deserve no less.

What makes a “king?” It’s not the means by which he takes the throne, or the length of time he remains there. The threat of punishment at the ballot box in four years is not a sufficient check on executive power, especially for a President who will never again face the voters.

What is “taxation without representation?” Ask your grandchildren, when they are taxed through the nose to pay off deranged spending commitments they weren’t alive to oppose.

I see nothing wrong with invoking the language of the American Revolution, when it is so clearly still in progress.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HA3jwOFjHhw
 

Steve

Well-known member
sure wish Rand had run this time, instead of his dad.. I think he could have easily won...

now I just hope there is enough of a country left after king obama gets overthrown to salvage..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I, for one, sure hope that obama tries to use executive orders to deal with the "gun control" issue and also the Debt ceiling issue.

If nothing else, it will be fun to watch.

:lol:
 

smalltime

Well-known member
Wish again .You didnt get anything that time steve.You had a chance to put the country back on track and you blew it.Quit try ing to cover your pile.Noone is buying it.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
I keep telling you folks, on a national level, it's OVER. Yeah, the congress will have its back and forth.....pubs in control one cycle, donks in another, but the presidency from here forward is going to be in the hands of the donks.

The demographics have changed, forever, and they don't favor conservative Republicans.

The following article about Obama's aggressiveness in his second term pretty well sums up what I believe:

Obama in effect is answering a question that liberal political thinkers have asked since the 1970s: how would the Democratic Party behave if it could diminish its dependence on conservative white voters? His forceful moves on all these controversial fronts represent a calculated gamble that the evolution of the US electorate has reached a critical tipping point. When Bill Clinton moved on some of these same issues, the conservative backlash (particularly over gun control and gays in the military) contributed to the Republican landslide in 1994 that gave the party control of both legislative chambers for the rest of the decade. Obama is betting that the Democratic coalition will prove more resilient than in Clinton’s day. That’s undeniably true in presidential elections, though it could prove a problem for congressional Democrats—but more on that later.

Since the 1970s Democrats have often been paralyzed by the fear of losing culturally conservative white voters if they moved too far left, particularly on social and foreign-policy issues. And in fact, those voters did stampede away from Obama last November in even larger numbers than in 2008: Exit polls conducted on election day found that Republican Mitt Romney carried over three-fifths of both whites older than 45 and whites without a four-year college degree.

Yet Obama not only won without them, but won convincingly. Final vote tallies have pushed his share of the national vote past 51%, making him the only the third Democrat ever to cross that threshold twice (joining Franklin Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson.)


http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/expect-obama-to-be-more-aggressive-in-his-second-term-20130116?page=1
 

Steve

Well-known member
smalltime said:
Wish again .You didnt get anything that time steve.You had a chance to put the country back on track and you blew it.Quit try ing to cover your pile.Noone is buying it.

Rand didn't run... if you research facts.. and my posts you will see I supported Rand on many issues and even felt he would make the best VP

and if you check you will see that I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries.

When he couldn't carry any of the states and stomped on his own principles to try to get on the ballot.. so he lost my support..
 
Top