State of the Union

Three State of the Union Visions: Obama, Rubio, and Paul


Sen. Rand Paul
Sen. Rand Paul

If you wanted a menu of political options for America's political future, you got them last night. President Obama put forward a vision — not the red-beret, full-on lefty vision of which he's often accused — but of a Borg-ish, collectivist country in which the word "we" is used a lot, and "we" tirelessly meddle in the affairs of other nations, among other things, under the command of a very powerful executive. The stark contrast was provided, not by the official Republican response delivered by a parched Sen. Marco Rubio, but by Sen. Rand Paul. He laid out a full-throated defense of individualism, small government, free markets and civil liberties. Rubio … His response was cheeriness, a weak nod to capitalism, But … hooray for Medicare!

Contrast, if you will, these takes on:

Aassassination by drone, executive power and related civil liberties concerns

First, the president:

As we do, we must enlist our values in the fight. That is why my Administration has worked tirelessly to forge a durable legal and policy framework to guide our counterterrorism operations. Throughout, we have kept Congress fully informed of our efforts. I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word that we're doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to engage with Congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention, and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.

From Sen. Paul:

We will stand up against excessive government power wherever we see it.

We cannot and will not allow any President to act as if he were a king.

We will not let any President use executive orders to impinge on the Second Amendment.

We will not tolerate secret lists of American citizens who can be killed without trial.

From Sen. Rubio:


Seriously. How do you skip that issue the week after the revelation of a memo authorizing the president to snuff people on his own say-so?

Competing economic visions

First, the president:

A year and a half ago, I put forward an American Jobs Act that independent economists said would create more than one million new jobs. I thank the last Congress for passing some of that agenda, and I urge this Congress to pass the rest. …

There are things we can do, right now, to accelerate this trend. Last year, we created our first manufacturing innovation institute in Youngstown, Ohio. A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything. There's no reason this can't happen in other towns. So tonight, I'm announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs …

Tonight, I propose a "Fix-It-First" program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country.

From Sen Paul:

Ronald Reagan said, government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem.

Tonight, the President told the nation he disagrees. President Obama believes government is the solution: More government, more taxes, more debt.

What the President fails to grasp is that the American system that rewards hard work is what made America so prosperous.

What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith. In the year we won our independence, Adam Smith described what creates the Wealth of Nations.

He described a limited government that largely did not interfere with individuals and their pursuit of happiness.

Sen. Rubio:

More government isn't going to create more opportunities.  It's going to limit them.

And more government isn't going to inspire new ideas, new businesses and new private sector jobs.  It's going to create uncertainty.

Because more government breeds complicated rules and laws that a small business can't afford to follow.

Because more government raises taxes on employers who then pass the costs on to their employees through fewer hours, lower pay and even layoffs.

On immigration

The president:

Our economy is stronger when we harness the talents and ingenuity of striving, hopeful immigrants. And right now, leaders from the business, labor, law enforcement, and faith communities all agree that the time has come to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

Real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my Administration has already made – putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history, and reducing illegal crossings to their lowest levels in 40 years.

Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship – a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English, and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally.

Sen. Paul:

We are the party that embraces hard work and ingenuity, therefore we must be the party that embraces the immigrant who wants to come to America for a better future.

We must be the party who sees immigrants as assets, not liabilities.

We must be the party that says, "If you want to work, if you want to become an American, we welcome you."

Sen. Rubio:

We can also help our economy grow if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world's best and brightest. We need a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. But first, we must follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws.


The president:

In 2011, Congress passed a law saying that if both parties couldn't agree on a plan to reach our deficit goal, about a trillion dollars' worth of budget cuts would automatically go into effect this year. These sudden, harsh, arbitrary cuts would jeopardize our military readiness. They'd devastate priorities like education, energy, and medical research. They would certainly slow our recovery, and cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. That's why Democrats, Republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts, known here in Washington as "the sequester," are a really bad idea.

Now, some in this Congress have proposed preventing only the defense cuts by making even bigger cuts to things like education and job training; Medicare and Social Security benefits.

That idea is even worse.

Sen Paul:

It is time for a new bipartisan consensus.

It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud.

Where would we cut spending; well, we could start with ending all foreign aid to countries that are burning our flag and chanting death to America.

The President could begin by stopping the F-16s and Abrams tanks being given to the radical Islamic government of Egypt.

Not only should the sequester stand, many pundits say the sequester really needs to be at least $4 trillion to avoid another downgrade of America's credit rating.

Both parties will have to agree to cut, or we will never fix our fiscal mess.

Sen. Rubio:

The real cause of our debt is that our government has been spending 1 trillion dollars more than it takes in every year. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment.

The biggest obstacles to balancing the budget are programs where spending is already locked in. One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now. 

I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother. But anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it. …

In order to balance our budget, the choice doesn't have to be either higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need.  Instead we should grow our economy so that we create new taxpayers, not new taxes, and so our government can afford to help those who truly cannot help themselves.

President Obama's speech was a clear presentation of a powerful state and collective action. Sen. Paul's speech was a defense of individualism, small government and personal liberty. Sen. Rubio tried to present a don't-scare-the-swing voters, softer defense of a smaller-ish government. Overall, to my taste, the strongest presentation, by far, was by Sen. Paul.

Paul's speech was the hardest to find, last night, So view it yourself, below.

NEXT: At Least Nine Civilians Killed in NATO Air Strike in Afghanistan

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Paul needs a hairdresser, Rubio needs a humidifier, and Obama needs a brain.

    1. Einstein did just fine without a hairdresser. So did Telly Savalas.

    2. They’re off to see the Wizard?

      1. There’s no place like K Street. There’s no place like K Street. There’s no place like K Street.

        1. Also, fried chicken.

          1. I think that may be racist.

              1. It’s Obama’s world, we’re just living in it.

                1. It’s my world, the rest of you are just fucking shit up.

          2. To quote Dave Chappelle, if you don’t like fried chicken, there’s something wrong with you!

            1. Yeah, I’m white and I *dream* about eating fried chicken. It may shorten my life, but it makes it more enjoyable.

              1. Fried chicken ain’t killing you, that heap of mashed potatoes and the peach cobbler that you finish your meal off are the real culprits.

                1. Actually, it’s all the exercise you get walking between your car and the restaurant.;)

      2. “Pay no attention to that man behind the teleprompter! I am the great and Powerful Ozbama!”

  2. I recognize that in our democracy, no one should just take my word that we’re doing things the right way. So, in the months ahead, I will continue to tell you that you should just take my word that we’re doing things the right way.

    1. Hey, if Chris Matthews trusts him, who am I to argue.

      1. Hey, if something was wrong, his leg wouldn’t tingle.

      2. AHA! I knew you were in Camp Ignorant!

  3. Seriously. How do you skip that issue the week after the revelation of a memo authorizing the president to snuff people on his own say-so?

    Well it’s easy if you want to retain that power when your guy is in there. Which the typical Republican actually believes will happen (both that they’ll win, and be allowed by the media to retain that power).

    1. Yep. The Elephants wantsss the precious.

      1. But..they would weild it to do good! They would not be corrupted by its evil power!

        1. It’s different when they do it because you can trust them.

    2. you skip it because Bushite after Bushite has come out IN FAVOR of it. Bolton, Cheney, et al. Why would anyone expect Rubio to differ?

    3. The media probably will allow TEAM RED to retain that power. They might use it to criticize them if something egregious happens, but when was the last time the media said the State should not have some power?

      1. when was the last time the media said the State should not have some power?

        You mean, other than on abortion, right?

  4. Citizen…the new comrade.

    1. Good morning, Citizen…

      1. That’s MR. Citizen to you bucko

        Thank God for Netflix, we washed a few more episodes of House of Cards rather than the Choco Jesus.

        Reading the transcript sickens me, as he outlines tons of shit that are mostly outside of the box the feds were supposed to be locked within.


  5. The strongest presentation, by far, was by Sen. Paul.

    Tell me something we don’t know….

    The voters have been given their choice! It will always be between someone like President Hollow Chocolate Bunny-TEAM T O N Y or Newest Up and Coming Empty Suit Senator in a state we reeally, really need to hold onto if we have any hope of staying relevant -TEAM RED

    meh! Bring on the collapse!!

  6. Seriously. How do you skip that issue the week after the revelation of a memo authorizing the president to snuff people on his own say-so?

    As far as Rubio is concerned, if it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.

  7. I have it on great authority the Obama’s exploding fist bump when he either entered or exited the House was the coolest thing ever done by the coolest person ever.

  8. For several of the responses, I would say that Obama’s message will come across better. They are longer and full of fancy phrases and they sound good. They massage the listener’s brain into submission. It does not matter that half of it is nonsense or contradicts the other half. People listen and say “he sounds smart”. “See, he does want to work with congress and do smart things with our money that experts are in favor of”.

    1. The People prefer platitudes, vagaries, and promises that could never be fulfilled.

      My bullshit meter is pegged every time that guy speaks.

      1. Me: The sound of his voice pisses me off
        Mrs. RBS: Me too.
        Me: Then stop changing the channel to him!
        Mrs. RBS: He’s on all of them.

        1. You don’t enjoy the three lines up, one line down cadence? The profound sounding BS point (with a pause for applause)? The strawmen getting set up and knocked down like bowling pins?

          1. Obama has ruined that speech technique for atleast a generation. Like pavlov’s dog, that cadence transforms me from an interested listener to a rage induced maniac.

          2. A presentation style that only those who claim to be educated and sophisticated can love.

  9. That both Rubio and Paul gave dueling responses is proof positive that the GOP is undergoing mitosis. The sooner the process is complete the better, I say.

    1. I dunno, HM. The problem here is which cell gets gobbled up by nuetrophils and macrophages, with TEAM BLUE being the cancer in situ here.

      1. Necrosis, mitosis, same thing.

    2. I wish I shared your optimism. The neocons will only let republicans politicians be pried from their cold dead hands. No way this can end well.

      1. You should do like I did and look up “mitosis”.

        1. The name of the commenter was fitting in this instance.

    3. Wouldn’t meiosis be more apt? I doubt we’re getting the same genome in GOP-1 and GOP-2.

      1. I didn’t want any sexual connotations to be associated with either Paul or Rubio.

        1. There’s a rule which says that there’s already pornographic Paul/Rubio fanfiction. Think about that.

    4. I’m not so sure it is mitosis and not just a civil war.

      It is certainly possible that in the near future the Republican party will actually split into 2 different parties but I think it is more likely given the realities of the American political system that it will just result in a realignment of the varying political factions that make up each party

  10. Overall, to my taste, the strongest presentation, by far, was by Sen. Paul.

    Well, it certainly had the most coherent substance. But he sounded whiny and exasperated.

    I’d say from a rhetorical POV, Obama’s speech was better. If you ignore what he was actually saying, he sounded reasonable and “above the fray”. Rubio’s rhetorical technique was also mostly better than Paul’s but he blew it all with the chugo de agua.

    1. Which is why I am glad I am in UKR, Tulpa, so I can read as opposed to hear these pretenders to the throne spake. I am not coloured by the verbal delivery and concentrate on substance.

      1. Bah. That’s like reading the script of a horror movie and saying it didn’t scare you.

      2. Before Woodrow Wilson (rot in Hell), the State of the Union was a written report to Congress. If it was read aloud, it was done by a page or secretary.

        It probably had far more substance and less flourish to it then.

        1. The spread of radio probably had more to do with that than Wilson.

          1. Wilson was directly excreted from the Devil’s rectum. The radio announcers could simply have read the SOTU addresses, without the Pres making a Speech From the Throne thing out of it.

    2. If by “rhetorical POV” you mean strictly the presentation itself, you may be right. But rhetoric is far more than simply the presentation itself.

      He is a slimy little fucker, and the only people who bought anything he had to say are those who already stroke his ego.

      1. Ethos (Greek for ‘character’) refers to the trustworthiness or credibility of the writer or speaker. Ethos is often conveyed through tone and style of the message and through the way the writer or speaker refers to differing views. It can also be affected by the writer’s reputation as it exists independently from the message–his or her expertise in the field, his or her previous record or integrity, and so forth. The impact of ethos is often called the argument’s ‘ethical appeal’ or the ‘appeal from credibility.’

        [P]athos (Greek for ‘suffering’ or ‘experience’) is often associated with emotional appeal. But a better equivalent might be ‘appeal to the audience’s sympathies and imagination.’ An appeal to pathos causes an audience not just to respond emotionally but to identify with the writer’s point of view–to feel what the writer feels. In this sense, pathos evokes a meaning implicit in the verb ‘to suffer’–to feel pain imaginatively…. Perhaps the most common way of conveying a pathetic appeal is through narrative or story, which can turn the abstractions of logic into something palpable and present. The values, beliefs, and understandings of the writer are implicit in the story and conveyed imaginatively to the reader. Pathos thus refers to both the emotional and the imaginative impact of the message on an audience, the power with which the writer’s message moves the audience to decision or action.

        1. Logos (Greek for ‘word’) refers to the internal consistency of the message–the clarity of the claim, the logic of its reasons, and the effectiveness of its supporting evidence. The impact of logos on an audience is sometimes called the argument’s logical appeal.

          Ramage, John D. and John C. Bean. Writing Arguments. 4th Edition. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1998, 81-82.

          Note that for rhetorical purposes, fallacious reasoning is perfectly capable of serving as Logos; indeed for a general audience, it is superior to obscure or convoluted but valid logic. The well-known fallacies are well-known because they are appealing to the human mind.

          1. For example, take this little bit on global warming:

            Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods ? all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science ? and act before it’s too late.

            This is Logos. It’s chock full of false premises, red herrings, and appeals to authority, but it sounds like logic to the average listener. If you don’t agree with BO you believe the absurd, it sounds like.

          2. If your logic is obscure or convoluted then check your logic again.

            1. You clearly don’t know any logicians. Go read some of G?del’s papers.

          3. I’m fully aware of Aristotle, thanks.

          4. The well-known fallacies are well-known, but they aren’t known as fallacies.

            People think reducio ad absurdem is a fallacy… that one is valid. Appeals to authority and concensus get way more weight and acceptance.

        2. and logos – reason – completes the trilogy. By far, it is the most absent in any Obama speech. And in a sad indicator of the culture, it also appears the least important among the proles. Feeling is so much easier than thinking.

          1. I couldn’t fit logos in the first post due to the character limit.

            1. no sweat…I see where you got in it no a later post.

  11. There’s no reason this can’t happen in other towns. So tonight, I’m announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs, which coincidentally will, like the first in Ohio, also be in union controlled states where generous supporters of my campaign will be given as much graft and stolen loot as possible.


    1. There’s no reason this can’t happen in other towns. So tonight, I’m announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs, which coincidentally will, like the first in Ohio, also be in battleground states so that the people there know which side to vote for once election day rolls around.

      I think this version is more accurate.

      1. I doubt we start seeing any of these “manufacturing hubs” appearing in FL. No unions, at least not mandated ones, and potential voters isn’t enough. The big money only flows once you’re already a definite voter.

  12. The commentes at the WP about Rand Paul are…something.

    8:36 AM EST
    Mr. Paul is too young to remember when people actually cared for each other. he is further burdened by the afflication of Ayn Rand, a woman I met on two occasions when she gave her lectures. I had a brief discussion with her, among other people who stopped to talk to her after one of her jaunts to college campuses. I found her cold, manipulative, a dank presence in our midst. Others who were with me on these two occasions also found her to be wanting in compassion. She lived her ‘philosophy’ of not giving a damn about anyone but herself. that is really what Paul is talking about. He couches it in sneaky terms, but it is what he means.

    He wants to divide and conquer us.
    Like ? Reply ? Share
    ? Flag

    1. Where is barfman when you need him?

      Yeah, Paul’s lamenting for a time when the president didn’t have the unilateral capabilities of invading nations and killing people, some of them American citizens, without a shred of due process is a scourge designed to “divide and conquer.” His desire to avoid fiscapolcalypse is fucking terrible.

      It is all TEAM politics to these people. It doesn’t matter what Rand Paul would have said; the response from andycatinthehat would have been exactly the same. Cheap anecdotes about Ayn Rand and the “sneakiness” of Rand Paul’s rhetoric. Of course Paul was the only one of the three who spoke in concrete terms rather than meaningless phrases like “manufacturing hubs” and “shared prosperity.” But it’s Paul who is sneaky and who speaks with the sole intent of later subterfuge.

      1. It is all TEAM politics to these people. It doesn’t matter what Rand Paul would have said; the response from andycatinthehat would have been exactly the same.

        Exactly. Words and concepts mean nothing; team loyalty means everything. All doubt was removed in my mind when liberals attacked Reagan for doing what they had long called for.

    2. You will not find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy, with a side order of insane troll logic, than the WP comments.

      1. How can you say that when gems like this; burdened by the afflication are found there?

      2. I have actually begun using NoScript to block the comments section of the WaPo. It’s the only way I can avoid getting into forum wars with the locals until my head explodes.

      3. I dunno, DW. Politico gives them a pretty good run for their money.

  13. Paul’s call for a balanced budget amendment was pure fantasy, btw.

    Something like requiring 2/3 majorities to raise the debt ceiling might work.

    1. That was Rubio, unless Paul did it also.

      1. Paul definitely did it. My eyes were glazing over during Rubio’s, except for laughing at his agua break.

        1. We’ve done so well *without* a BBA, we clearly don’t need such an amendment.

  14. Ted Nugent on the SOTU:

    “My favorite part was when I couldn’t hear clearly…I didn’t have to get angry,” Mr. Nugent said.

    1. My favorite part was where I didn’t watch it. That was great.

      1. Yeah, I loved the part when the microwave pizza was done. I thought he did the whole ‘shutting the hell up and not talking while I make my pizza’ part really well.

  15. President Obama put forward a vision ? not the red-beret, full-on lefty vision of which he’s often accused ? but of a Borg-ish, collectivist country in which the word “we” is used a lot

    What the heck is the difference?

    1. “We” is a beautiful word. In fact, it was even the title of a novel. Okay, so maybe that’s not the best example of the glory and splendor of the word.

          1. Wow! Never heard of this but now on my “must read” list.

    2. What the heck is the difference?

      the Borg version entails institutional groupthink where no one considers, let alone questions, alternatives. The red beret version still has the occasional dissident to imprison or execute. Marx would have favored the Borg collective.

      1. Marx believed that the red beret version would eventually whither away, leaving us with the utopia of the Borg collective.

        1. But the red beret part is the most fun! Hot revolutionary chicks, smoking French cigarettes and drinking vodka in basements, listening to punk rock! If you could just get that whole buzzkill economic thing out of there, it’d be great!

    3. Pre-9/11 leftists were, at least rhetorically, concerned about civil liberties.

      Every time BO mentioned liberty or freedom in his speech it was as an impediment to something else he wanted to do.

      1. When you’ve got the ball, every bump is pass interference.

        The boomer Progressives have spent decades stuffing government, universities, and media, and now they’ve got a President who grew up drinking their Kool-Aid, and they’ve done such a fine job of infusing society with their ideals that they’ve got the “other” opposition party essentially making excuses for not toeing the line instead of presenting a coherent alternative vision without apology.

        Why would they need freedom? They’ve already got it. The only reason you would possibly want freedom would be to do something other than what the Progressives find acceptable or palatable, and what right-thinking person could possibly want that?

      2. If only the national guard had shot more hippies

  16. Approaching the SOTU concordance-style:

    “right” (noun): 3

    In the Middle East, we will stand with citizens as they demand their universal rights, and support stable transitions to democracy. The process will be messy, and we cannot presume to dictate the course of change in countries like Egypt; but we can ? and will ? insist on respect for the fundamental rights of all people. We will keep the pressure on a Syrian regime that has murdered its own people, and support opposition leaders that respect the rights of every Syrian.

    We must all do our part to make sure our God-given rights are protected here at home. That includes our most fundamental right as citizens: the right to vote. When any Americans ? no matter where they live or what their party ? are denied that right simply because they can’t wait for five, six, seven hours just to cast their ballot, we are betraying our ideals.

    We are citizens. It’s a word that doesn’t just describe our nationality or legal status. It describes the way we’re made. It describes what we believe. It captures the enduring idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter in our American story.

    1. So I don’t troll Twitter, just need to vent: the fucking president thinks our most important right is our right to attempt to oppress the other people who live near us. Fucking. Awesome.

      1. It’s not just him either — the entire left has snuck in this idea of voting as THE fundamental right to the point where questioning this status is a gaffe of gigantic proportions.

        We’re well along the way to fulfilling Mr De Tocqueville’s prediction about being enslaved with only the ability to rattle our chains every four years.

        1. It’s not just the left. It was dogma among the right until last November, when it went into the nearest memory hole.

          1. Wanting the vote to be secure isn’t quite the same thing.

            The left, by elevating the vote to the ultimate right, makes anyone suggesting securing the vote look like they’re trying to deny people their right to vote. And they are. Because ‘people’ don’t have the right to vote in US elections–only citizens of 18 or more years do.

            1. I wasn’t talking about securing the vote, as my reference to last November should have made clear. I was talking about the supposed right to vote on other people’s rights, which was a fetish among so-cons until it bit them in the ass.

        2. Yes, I know. Unlike most of this other stuff, which I find irritating, or anger-inducing, or whatever, this I just find straight depressing.

    2. I’m totally fucking confused how your ability to vote is abridged because you had to stand in line. Also, I want proof that people stood in line for 6 to 7 “hours”.

  17. “freedom”: 3

    Above all, America must remain a beacon to all who seek freedom during this period of historic change. I saw the power of hope last year in Rangoon ? when Aung San Suu Kyi welcomed an American President into the home where she had been imprisoned for years; when thousands of Burmese lined the streets, waving American flags, including a man who said, “There is justice and law in the United States. I want our country to be like that.”

    In defense of freedom, we will remain the anchor of strong alliances from the Americas to Africa…[into first quote above]

    But defending our freedom is not the job of our military alone….[into second quote above]

  18. Seriously. How do you skip that issue the week after the revelation of a memo authorizing the president to snuff people on his own say-so?

    Because Rubio is a NeoCon! Gawd, that was easy.

  19. I missed all the gun control derp, could someone fill me in?

    1. “Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned. Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress.”

      blah blah, gun violence, blah blah, they deserve a vote…

      “Our actions will not prevent every senseless act of violence in this country. In fact, no laws, no initiatives, no administrative acts will perfectly solve all of the challenges I’ve outlined tonight. But we were never sent here to be perfect.”

      Choco Jesus at least admits that the proposals won’t do a bit of good but damn, it just feels so good to do something.

      1. I thought “Gals” was sexist now.

      2. Wasn’t it painful and scary to hear the swelling of the audience into deafening rapture as he over and over chanted “they deserve a vote, they deserve a vote, they deserve a vote…..”

  20. So in summary: the references to “freedom” are about some abstract notion that foreign govts need to respect, and an intro to a call for early/online voting… and the references to “right(s)” are those two things again plus a minimization of the importance of individual rights (“bound up in the rights of others”)

    And of course “liberty” has 0 occurrences.

  21. I don’t understand why liberty-minded people fornicate over Rand, especially since he made his bed with the statist Tea Party

    – endorsing mittens instead of his father
    – doing a Israel photo-op paid for by a statist christian organization
    – saying that a attack on Israel is a attack on the US

    As a republican, he’s the best there is….but Rand is most certainly compromising values to be a relevant politician, as shown by running under the republican (neocon) label

    1. Rand didn’t endorse Mitt until very late in the primary cycle, when Ron was already mathematically eliminated.

      1. still besides the point….Mittens was the exact opposite of what the liberty movement is all about

        And there was still Gary Johnson

        1. Not really beside the point. Why should we care about an endorsement that doesn’t change anything at all? Actions, not words.

          1. “Who cares if the change goes against everything we stand for (more military spending, more corporate welfare)….at least it’s change”

            starting to see the problem now?

            1. No, you apparently didn’t read what I said, since my point was that his endorsement WASN’T CHANGE AT ALL. His endorsement didn’t give Romney the nomination, it didn’t make one bit of difference. Who cares about that? Saying “Boo!” for essentially empty words while ignoring his actual efforts in the Senate is ridiculous.

              1. empty words? so Rand is a typical politician after all.

                How easily duped

                1. Empty words for a politician we don’t like? Compared to actual actions, who cares? If you care so much about words and words alone, you’re just the same as all those mindless sheep. Some of us actually care about what politicians do.

                  1. If the words are empty, then why say anything at all and give fuel for sceptics such as myself?

    2. his bed with the statist Tea Party

      How DARE he try to be successful and relevant! Get bent.

      1. so you don’t care how badly he twists up the libertarian message? All that matters is that your politician of choice is relevant in this current and corrupt system?

        sounds like a kool-aid drinker to me

        1. He isn’t “twisting” anything. The message he sends on specific issues hasn’t changed or been “twisted” at all. Confusing a meaningless endorsement with actual proposals on issues is silly.

    3. So, which is it, Kurbster? Was the Tea Party something Ron Paul created or is it some sort of statist outfit? I keep hearing some libertarians try to simultaneously hold the two views and it sounds like either idiotic preening from a poseur or just a raft of horsecrap!

      1. As it is currently, the Tea Party is a statist outfit. There are still a few people out there trying to get the movement back to its roots, but for the most part, it has been hijacked by the social conservatives and neocons who think it’s hip to rebel against their GOP masters for not being extreme enough

        1. I can imagine some neocon one day saying “I DIDN’T SUPPORT ROMNEY BECAUSE HE DIDN’T WANT TO KILL ENOUGH AMERICAN CITIZENS”

    4. Penis.. that is all

  22. So how many people tuned in Our Glorious Leader vs. Rubio vs. Paul? I bet the audience shrunk tremendously by the time Paul was on whereever he was on (I couldn’t find him on my tv at all).

  23. That Marco Rubio sure is like Reagan. Just like Romney was Reaganesque. Yeah right! I thought the Mormons weren’t on drugs. Try drinking something with caffeine for once. Might clear up the brain cells. Rubio and John Ellis “Jeb” Bush are going to lose to Hilary Clinton

  24. Choco Jesus said:

    “We will draw upon the courage and skills of our sisters and daughters and moms, because women have proven under fire that they are ready for combat.

    On the same day that:

    VAWA Vote: Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Violence Against Women Act


  25. My two cents
    I like how Obama tries to take credit for wanting to get rid of tax loopholes after he already told congress this year they couldn’t eliminate them. And then he had the gall to call for creating tax credits for companies that do the things he likes. Loophole vs tax credit same thing so what do you want Mr Presidents, I know the status quoe

  26. I first heard the term today, “the gun show loophole”. Meaning, individuals selling to each other. Say what you like, but the Socialists are masters of language manipulation. Those liberal arts educations gave them creative language skills.

  27. A balanced budget amendment takes more votes to pass than a balanced budget does, and it would give the Dems cover to raise taxes.

  28. If you think Edna`s story is cool…, last pay-cheque my sister’s best friend basically also recieved a check for $5865 working a seventeen hour week from there apartment and their best friend’s mom`s neighbour done this for 9-months and got over $5865 parttime from a labtop. follow the instructions on this address, http://www.FLY38.COM

    1. What the fuck is with the spamming and trolling on this site.. jesus.

  29. Hard work and the proper role of government took center stage in President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union Address. For some historic perspective we might look back to WWII when another generation was asked to work hard and sacrifice on behalf of the war effort by a powerful national government that raised taxes, dictated prices, rationed goods, and dispensed advice on everything from child rearing to good nutrition.

    My new multimedia iBook “Workers Win the War: Toil and Sacrifice on the US Homefront” [$2.99 at iTunes ] will take you back in time to experience first-hand how the government mobilized public support for the war through higher taxes, hard work and sacrifice. Contrast that era with our “homefront” experience today, when only our troops and their families have been asked to make sacrifices for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    This book is rich with WWII media – 80 posters, 18 films, cartoons, radio broadcast, recording and sheet music and a dozen rarely-seen pamphlets – from Bugs Bunny selling bonds in blackface, to Burns and Allen joking on the radio about rationing, to posters claiming taking a sick day was treasonous.

    1. I suppose I should say it:

      Fuck off you statist twit!

  30. Except on Civil Liberties and Spending… Rubio wore the dress better. Even though Rand would more likely stick to those principles.

  31. Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world

  32. my classmate’s aunt makes $79/hr on the computer. She has been out of a job for seven months but last month her pay check was $15402 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here http://www.FLY38.COM

  33. Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.