Rand Paul

VID: Rand Paul: Republicans Can Only Win if "They Become More Live and Let Live"


As Rand Paul gears up to officially announce his presidential candidacy on Tuesday, Reason TV takes a look back at Paul's interview with Nick Gillespie. 

Originally published on July 23, 2014. Text below:

"I think Republicans could only win in general if they become more live and let live," Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tells Reason TV at Lincoln Labs' Reboot Conference, which was held July 18-20 in San Francisco.

Paul sat down with Nick Gillespie to talk about the future of the GOP, the need to reach the 80-million-strong Millennial Generation, why having a strong national defense doesn't mean constant military interventions, and what Washington, D.C. can learn from the entrepreneurial culture of Silicon Valley.

When asked whether he would vote to end the taxpayer-funded Export-Import Bank, which helps foreign companies buy U.S. products, is widely seen as a leading example of corporate welfare, and is coming up for a vote in September, Paul replied:

Absolutely. If I'm a Republican and I'm going out and saying, "We have limited resources and we can't have everyone on food stamps," by golly I need to be a Republican who says "we're not giving one penny of corporate welfare."

About 13 minutes. 

Interview by Nick Gillespie. Edited by Paul Detrick. Shot by Detrick and Tracy Oppenheimer. Music by Podington Bear and photos by Elvert Barnes and thisisbossi.

Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new videos go live and scroll down for HD, Flash, MP4, and MP3 versions.

Below is a rush transcript of the conversation. All quotes should be checked against the video.

REASON: Hi I'm Nick Gillespie with Reason TV, we're at the reboot 2014 Conference and we're talking with Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky. Senator, thanks for talking with us.

RAND PAUL: Glad to be with you, Nick.

REASON: What can the rest of the country learn from Silicon Valley?

PAUL: Y'know I think the amazing thing out here, is the relentless energy and drive to move forward, and they don't wait to say "Hey, how can government fix this, or how can even somebody else fix it?" They fix it themselves or they find a niche, like they find taxi cabs have a monopoly and they ask "how are we going to stop a monopoly?" and they start Uber. So I think it's just the amazing ingenuity and amazing that they're not going to wait for somebody else to do it.

REASON: They're not even thinking about government, they're getting on with their business and then dealing with it afterwards.

PAUL: Right.

REASON: What can Silicon Valley learn from other parts of the country?

PAUL: Well I think one of the things is that Silicon Valley went pretty Democrat, they supported the president. I think they just need to reevaluate and say, "All the things we do here, the success of Silicon valley, would that happen if we had a big government that had internet taxes and internet regulation? Would Silicon Valley have ever developed if big government got in the way of the development of the internet?" In fact, people say that the beauty of the internet and why it's developed so phenomenally is that every other industry we have in the country is heavily regulated. It's one of the few industries that really has very little regulation. 

REASON: Why do you think Silicon Valley has gotten more politicized, at least since the Microsoft anti-trust case in the early 2000s? Why has it gone so Democratic then?

PAUL: I don't think they're complete comfortable in either party. And I know you and Matt [Welch] have written about the demographics of where people are, and I truly believe the conclusion that a plurality of people are no longer Republican or Democrat. Silicon Valley I would put right in that demographic. If you ask people out here, "Are you more fiscally conservative? Less taxes than the president? Less regulations?" they'll say, "Yeah, I'm more conservative than the president." "Are you more moderate, more liberal than the Republicans on social issues?" They'll say, "yes." They don't fit neatly in either category. I think they're primed for someone who would come to them with a message that's not entirely Republican and not entirely Democrat. 

REASON: You gave a speech here at the Reboot Conference and you were talking about how a company like Uber, or many internet services, they create their own regulation where even the drivers and the riders are being regulated. Does that new model of regulation work in, say, the coal industry? Can you do that new form of regulation in old industries?

PAUL: I don't know, that's a good question. But there is a question of externalities that in a way the two parties regulate but a third party is affected like air pollution and things. Many libertarians over time have written over how property rights should be able to stop pollution, or limit pollution, although it's fairly complicated in the sense that it's not an all or none. Sometimes society will tolerate somewhat. We all drive cars. We all have electricity. So there's some emissions and we have to, as a society, develop what is acceptable. Could that be done by the crowd responding to pollution? I'm not positive, but I do think that there are many things where government becomes overzealous in regulations, whereas the crowd, the people who buy stuff and judge as you sell it to me, they want a good product, but they also want an honest product that's fair and without safety concerns. It's a better role for the crowd to regulate things than the government because the government only knows the downside of regulation, they don't look at the upside of employment and distribution of products.

REASON: Talk a little bit about benefit corporations. You've been speaking a lot about that, and that seems to be pretty much in tune with Silicon Valley or the tech community. What is a benefit corporation and why do you think they're important?

PAUL: A benefit corporation allows a corporation to do something they think is good for the environment or good for people and they don't have to look as strictly at their bottom line. To me it goes along with the freedom argument that if you own your business, you tell your shareholders what you're going to do. You either always maximize profit or you're gonna mostly maximize profit and sometimes do things for the environment. I think businesses should have that freedom. I've supported something called a B-Corporation that allows you to file and say "Y'know what? Sometimes we're going to do something that's a bit more expensive when we get rid of our waste because we believe in keeping the environment clean."

REASON: This seems to be part of a broader social movement where work is a form of self-expression in a way that it may not have been 50 or 60 years ago.

PAUL: To me, if you talk about the health of the psyche, or the health of the soul, I think work's an amazing thing. It's a lot like what [Cato Institute president] John Allison says is "earned self esteem." No one can give you self esteem. Self esteem's important, and we've got a culture that loves self esteem so we want to give it to everybody. It's like "2+2=5" and "oh Johnny, we want you to feel good about that." Johnny needs to learn that 2+2=4 and then he can feel good about it and then he'll earn his self-esteem. It's also that, really our culture, we need to really reinforce with people how important work is, not as punishment, but as reward. And so, from a governmental point of view, that I want everybody to work. I will have plans that will have everybody work, not as punishment but as reward. 

REASON: Foreign policy is an issue that you're at loggerheads a lot with, not just with establishment Democrats like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton but with members of the Republican party like Chris Christie, John McCain, recently Rick Perry. What is your foreign policy vision and how do you answer people who say you're a "namby pamby isolationist" who just wants to lock everything into a Fortress America?

PAUL: I think anytime anyone uses the world "namby pamby" we all fight so if you say that again that'll probably lead to fisticuffs.

Seriously, the number one priority of the federal government is to defend the country. It's in the constitution, it's constitutional, it's a priority. And for me, if you ask me, when tax dollars are sent by the people to Washington, where's the priority? To me the priority is in defending the country. Now when we get beyond that, then we would say, "How often should we be involved with a civil war in Syria?" I think there's a spectrum from, "we're never involved anywhere in the world" or, "we're always involved everywhere in the world." I think for many years, particularly the last dozen or so, we've been very close to everywhere all the time. I think there have been times in our history (Eisenhower, Reagan, the first George Bush) where we were much more towards the middle where we said "y'know what? War's the last resort. When we go, we vote on it in Congress, the people's representatives have to vote. That's what the constitution says. We go reluctantly." Or as Reagan said in one of his first inaugurals which I really like, he said, "Don't mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve." I think that's a good way of putting it. We should be reluctant for war and I think America wants is someone who will defend the country, someone who's wise, and someone who's not eager for war. 

REASON: How can this be a hard sell to Republicans? To the establishment they're like, "No, this is all wrong." I mean Dick Cheney is having his fifth or 10th heart attack every time you say something like that.

PAUL: I think a few people in Washington don't really represent even the Republican movement. If you ask people right now, "Should we send American GIs back into Iraq," a majority of Republicans will say "no." In fact, what I would allege is that if we had 100 American soldiers who were volunteers and they were sitting here in the audience, and you were to ask them, "Do you think that we should go back, do you think you should be sent back?" I think they'd say "no" now. So I think really the opinion has shifted but I think the policy-makers are, a lot of the time, a decade behind the public.

REASON: Do you think it's going to be hard to untangle the military industrial complex that Eisenhower and other people warned about because when you start to say, "Y'know what?" And with the budget plans you put out it's not like you increase the baseline defense spending either by much or if at all. But the contractors, all the people who are one the tip for military industrial work, that's a lot of money.

PAUL: Today I ran into a guy who says, "I was military, my son's military," and he worried about a strong national defense. Even this gentlemen when I say that I believe it's a priority, but then I say, "You know what? We should audit the pentagon because we can't have a strong national defense if we're paying 1000 dollars for a hammer or 1000 for a toilet seat. So even if you do believe national defense, which I do, is a priority, you can't write unlimited checks because you'll bankrupt the country. The quickest way to decline and fall of America is bankruptcy. People have said that the biggest threat to our national security is bankruptcy. So really, I think believing in reasonable spending, even in military is a strong national defense position.

REASON: Reason recently did a poll of millennials, a national poll. Only 22% called themselves Republicans or leaned that way. Millennials, there's 80 million of them, they're the future demographically. They overwhelmingly identify in favor of gay marriage, in favor of pot legalizing, in favor of vaping and online gambling. Can the Republican party shed the social conservative issues which seem very central to its concerns? How is that going to work? Can they win millennials without becoming more libertarian?

PAUL: I think Republicans can only win in general if they become more "live and let live." Grover Norquist will talk about this sometimes, this "leave me alone" coalition. But in order [for the party to] work—and this is what a lot of people don't realize this and they say "oh well we want the Republicans to be the pro-choice, pro-gay marriage party—it may not be that but it may be that there are people in the Republican party that have those positions and some who don't, and that we all get along because we believe in limited government and we acknowledge that the federal government isn't going to be involved in some of these issues anyways. And I think that "live and live, agree to disagree" kind of amalgamation of people in the party will allow us to be big enough to win. I agree with you a lot on young people but I think also some other libertarian issues like right to privacy, the NSA overzealousness. Young people are concerned about their cell phone, that's the main thing they do with every hour of every day. I think if we became the party that's going to protect their privacy, you could get a large switch of Republican vote.

REASON: Final question: The Export-Import Bank is coming up for reauthorization. This is an FDR program from the mid-1930s; it helped subsidize purchases of American goods and the Soviet Union, it is one of the clear cases of crony capitalism. You voted against reauthorization in 2012. Are you going to vote against reauthorization again, yes or no?

PAUL: Absolutely. If I'm a Republican and I'm going out and saying, "We have limited resources and we can't have everyone on food stamps," by golly I need to be a Republican who says "we're not giving one penny of corporate welfare." I'm not for giving corporate welfare and I think a lot of people, if they knew that we had to cut all the corporate welfare in order to have a more reasonable government that can pay for itself, I think all of a sudden people would say, "that's an honest Republican." What they don't like is a Republican who says "I'm cutting the food stamps but by golly I'm keeping the corporate welfare." It's an untenable position and Republicans need to cast that off.

REASON: Alright, we'll leave it there. Thank you Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky for talking to Reason TV at the Reboot 2014 Conference. I'm Nick Gillespie.

NEXT: VID: President Obama's Google Hangout with Reason TV

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OK, more interesting than Larry King, but why put the whole transcript on this page?

    1. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing

      1. Be gone, peasant.

    2. You’d think they could snip off the last couple sentences and get another page out of it..

  2. tl;dr

  3. OMG, the Rand has finally lowered himself to be questioned by the lowly libertarians.

  4. I think they’re primed for someone who would come to them with a message that’s not entirely Republican and not entirely Democrat.

    You mean a libertarian message, Rand?

  5. I would like to read an insane freakout about how libertarians sold the country out to the Gay Taliban. Could someone give me one of those, please?

    1. I would like to read an insane freakout about how libertarians sold the country out to the Gay Taliban.

      Wait, I thought they sold out to the mouth-breathing Christian right? This is all so confusing.

      1. That would also be an acceptable freakout.

      2. We sold out to the mouth-breathing right *by* selling the country out to the Gay Taliban!

    2. You been to WaPo lately? I’ve been there all day. I don’t know why I keep abusing myself like this.

      But you will find that there along with every other possible variation of insanity you can imagine, some that you probably cannot.

      1. I miss the days when “abusing myself” meant masturbating six times a day. Now it involves WaPo or the NYT.

        1. [sigh]

      2. You been to WaPo lately? I’ve been there all day.

        Get a hobby.

        1. Like masturbation?

          1. Copycat. Get your own hobby.

        2. I have several. It’s called multitasking.

          But there was this thread about how Peter Thiel is the anti-christ and I just couldn’t stop staring at the stupid, it was like a train wreck of humanity.

          1. “But there was this thread about how Peter Thiel is the anti-christ […]”

            Because he doesn’t think everybody needs a 4-year degree?

    3. I would like to read an insane freakout about how libertarians sold the country out to the Gay Taliban. Could someone give me one of those, please?

      This weekend I learned that I hate the Christian right and have dedicated my life to destroying them on behalf of my Gaystapo masters.

      Clearly I wasn’t quite as good a sleeper agent as the Gay G B thought I was, since I was found out so easily.

      1. No one thinks that you’re a sleeper agent for the Gaystopo, Irish.

        You’re a useful idiot for them.

  6. I would say Silicon Valley could stand to learn more from the country than vice-versa. Much of the country understands innovation, entrepreneurship, and the rest. Perhaps when the Valley moguls are being rationed water they’ll question the decisions that got them there.

    1. They could work on a legitimate commercial scale desalinization program. But then they will probably meet with the full wrath of the government behemoth there, as they do not want anyone taking away one of their sacred crisis.

      1. They could work on a legitimate commercial scale desalinization program.

        Scientist develops organism that desalinates water via genetic engineering. California implodes into a progressive singularity.

        1. You mean the proggie luddites shit their pants and decry these evil GMO organisms.

          1. Clearly. They make life better for the filthy teeming masses so are ipso facto evil.

      2. Or, they could even come up with a simple desalination plant that fed directly to the Central Valley Aqueduct. So it wouldn’t make any difference if the water wasn’t really drinkable, as long as it met the needs of agriculture irrigation, everything would be fine, and all the pristine water from the Sierras and the reservoirs could be for human consumption.

        I’ve been wondering why there hasn’t been a movement to do something like that, and all I can think is, where in California would they put it? Because there’d be thousands of progs protesting in the streets that a desalinization plant would be bad for the environment, or it would threaten the existence of some goddam brine shrimp, or something like that.

        So they’ll do their best to make sure we don’t get any more water, and yet then also support the state government’s current forcing all leafy suburbs to build high-density high-rises in the middle of their bedroom communities — because despite not having enough water for the people here now, packing many more new people into suburban downtown high-density living is good for the environment! Stupid SOBs can’t even tell when they’re being played for fools by developers.

        1. Politicians do not want solutions. They want a constant state of fear that they can take advantage of.

    2. Much of the country understands innovation, entrepreneurship, and the rest.

      Silicon Valley seems to understand it better and apply it a whole lot better.

      Perhaps when the Valley moguls are being rationed water they’ll question the decisions that got them there.


      1. California faces water issues that are certainly impacted by a drought but not solely caused by it. Dem opposition to water projects in the 70s did not help. Neither has a population that is simply more than the resources of the coast can handle. These people instead supported water diversion, into the Pacific, for various things and that has not worked out so well.

        that’s what.

        1. wareagle|4.5.15 @ 6:17PM|#
          “California faces water issues that are certainly impacted by a drought but not solely caused by it. Dem opposition to water projects in the 70s did not help.”

          Since 1975, CA has not developed a single new water storage facility, while the population doubled.
          Now moonbeam is proposing to do something about it, like fine people who use more than an arbitrary amount.

          1. Well, it’s only humans that we are talking about. If we give these evil humans more water, we might endanger a rare desert cricket. So people need to die.

            Any more questions, you evil rapey member of the patriarchy?

            1. And the money that might have been spent that way went to finance all the pub-sec union benies required once moonbeam signed the Dill act.

    3. Silicon valley isn’t what it used to be.

      1. I’m starting to think Zorn Industries had the right solution.

        1. “Good. Right on schedule.”

          1. What a waste. He could have been a great villain. Instead he got stuck in that turd of a film with Roger Moore driving around in a fucking Chrysler Lebaron.

            What a gyp.

          2. Sorry for the pedantry but it should be “shedule”.

            1. As a son-of-a-brit, I heartily agree.

            2. “Sorry for the pedantry but it should be “shedule”.”

              Well, skit!

      2. But the TV show is great! New episodes following GoT on April 12th!

        1. It is. I’m both interested and fascinated to see the modern silicon valley scene lampooned. Veep had an excellent episode where they covered the creepy “guru” culture extremely well.

          That scene where it took them ten minutes to get the “correct pronunciation of “Craig” was fantastic.

      3. “Silicon valley isn’t what it used to be.”

        Neither is the past…

  7. Funny how the democratic party’s definition of “live and let live” now is going to every business owner in small town America and launching a politically correct Inquisition against them, asking them if they would cater a gay wedding.

    I’m not sure exactly how that kind of behavior suddenly came to be seen as acceptable.

    1. If it were only that. Instead, they’re forcing the issue at the point of a large number of state guns.

    2. To be fair, they aren’t going to all of them. They avoid the Muslim bakeries like the plague.


  8. Hey, anyone remember the time The Nation declared that Venezuela was the most democratic country in the Western hemisphere?

    There’s been great work done on the ground by scholars such as Alejandro Velasco, Sujatha Fernandes, Naomi Schiller and George Ciccariello-Maher on these social movements that, taken together, lead to the conclusion that Venezuela might be the most democratic country in the Western Hemisphere. One study found that organized Chavistas held to “liberal conceptions of democracy and held pluralistic norms,” believed in peaceful methods of conflict resolution and worked to ensure that their organizations functioned with high levels of “horizontal or non-hierarchical” democracy. What political scientists would criticize as a hyper dependency on a strongman, Venezuelan activists understand as mutual reliance, as well as an acute awareness of the limits and shortcomings of this reliance.

    You say strongman nascent dictatorship, I say mutual reliance with an acute awareness of the limits and shortcomings of this reliance.

    Tomato, tomatoh.

    1. Waiting in line all day for basic human necessities is freedom.

  9. Fun with browser tabs:

    1. First browser tab.
    2. Second browser tab.
    3. Quickly switch back to first browser tab.
    4. Chuckle.

    1. Link 1 is proof all steaks should be cooked in bacon grease.

  10. Silicon Valley has become more Dem in direct relation to the batshit crazy emergence of the GOP.

    1. Yeah, that’s it. Couldn’t be anything else.

      1. Why would you take a Hillary shill troll serious enough to respond to it? Don’t waste your time.

        1. Just bored I guess. Debating whether I should finally get ME3 just to finish it.

  11. “Braves trade Craig Kimbrel and Melvin Upton, Jr. to the Padres”


  12. Rand is the smartest and most honest politician I’ve seen in my lifetime, period. And I have no doubt he will be the best leader we’ve had since the founders.

    Don’t pay too much attention to his pandering to SoCons. I hate it and it really gets me upset at times, but he knows he has to get the nomination. If he does, no doubt he will win the general.

    Hillary has probably already put out a hit on him.

    1. Rand Paul might be the favorite in 2016 if the Dems are crazy enough to nominate Al Sharpton.

      Rand vs. Hillary? I give Rand about a 5 – 10% chance.

      1. Rand will crush Hillary like a bug. She’ll have a fucking heart attack during the first debate. She’s counting on Jeb to give her da lub, otherwise the old fucking hag is toast.

        1. Can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic.

          If you’re serious, explain how exactly any Republican wins in 2016? How does the coalition that comfortably re-elected Obama in 2012 fall apart? Fine, African American turnout might not be as high. The Dems will still motivate their base with abortion, possibly gay marriage, and accusations of sexism against anyone who doesn’t think “it’s a woman’s turn.”

          What does RP offer? He’s not as hawkish as the average Repub? Great, but the anti-war movement in this country always struck me as more of an anti-Bush movement. Most people who were calling Bush Hitler 10 years ago because of Iraq won’t really care that Senator Hillary voted to allow him to invade. And they won’t care that RP is less hawkish than Lindsey Graham.

          1. Romney was a terrible candidate who couldn’t even appeal to his base. He was the one candidate the republicans could have nominated in 2012 to take away their single biggest issue against Barry. Paul will play fine with the base once past the primaries. The neocons aren’t really that threatened by him even if he’s not their first (or even third) choice, but the socons won’t have any real issues with him. So the base will line up behind him.

            Paul brings back the big tent. He’ll appeal pretty well to independents and can even fight on the dems’ turf on the drug war. That leaves war on wimminz which didn’t work out so well in 2014 (OK, not a presidential year) and trying to gin up something on abortion. I don’t think Paul will be dumb enough to step into the second, so it really comes down to discipline from the rest of the party. And since I expect most of the rest of the candidates to be establishment, I think they’ll have that discipline.

          2. If you’re serious, explain how exactly any Republican wins in 2016?

            By flipping 3% of the votes.

            Black turnout will certainly be lower. The democrat percentage of white votes cast has been declining for decades and will continue in 2016. And there is a natural 8 year oscillation of a couple of percent between the dem and rep presidental candidates.

            Add it all up and the republicans have a 70%+ chance of winning.

        2. Agreed. Rand would turn Hillary into a steaming pile of entrails in a debate. But I doubt she will even be nominated.

          1. OK, so Rand will pick up the support of the 0.06% of voters who actually make their decision based on debate performance.

            (Yeah I just made up that figure, don’t bother correcting me.)

            1. You’re off by 7.94%

  13. This is not nearly crazy enough. Pick up the slack, people!!!

    1. The ‘libertarian’ label is rejected by 91% of LIBERTARIANS!!!

      1. What’s 91% plus 8%? 99%!! And subtract that from 100% — it’s the famous 1%!!!

        We may have found a link between our most crazed posters!
        It’s just like the Da Vinci Code!

        1. I was just wondering which has been stated more often at Reason: shrike’s “I scored 94 on the libertarian purity test” or Michael Hihn’s “The libertarian label is rejected…..”

          Obviously shrike’s line has a massive head start because he’s been saying that for years, but MH seems to post his favorite bit of trivia multiple times in every fucking thread he participates in. So I don’t know, he might have caught up by now.

          1. It’s Hihn’s answer to “Name, rank, and serial number.”

          2. MH seems to post his favorite bit of trivia multiple times in every fucking thread he participates in.

            Not only that, but you’ll notice that he posts it verbatim, each time. The same vocabulary choices, grammatical structure, everything…as if he were cutting and pasting.

            1. “Not only that, but you’ll notice that he posts it verbatim, each time. The same vocabulary choices, grammatical structure, everything”

              Why, he must be a genius!

              1. Why, he must be a genius!

                If by “genius”, you mean “monomanic,” then sure.

            2. He’s also quite fond of extreme social conservative!!!

              1. “He’s also quite fond of extreme social conservative!!!”

                There was a site I posted on years ago and one of the commenters was sorta the turd of the place; claiming to be libertarian, except every time someone posted in favor of, say, repealing drug laws.
                Then whoever did so was accused of (BOLD, ITALIC) *ULTRA LIBERTARIANISM!!!*
                Yes, it got to be a running joke.

        2. Yes. And in 1992, Snow, a Canadian rapper, released “Informer”. Snow bears an uncanny resemblance to EdwardSnowden, an informer.

          Predictive programming, sheeple!

          Whitney Houston was SACRIFICED by the ILLUMINATI for the jubilee of Queen Elizabeth!

          1. Houston’s “How will I Know” was her second #1 single. Further proof it’s all related.

          2. I’ve always wondered how calling me a sheeple is supposed to convince me that the conspiracy is true. Or is it just signaling to other tinfoil hat non-sheeple?

            1. Also, why do conspiracies always conveniently involve random famous people and not “my uncle Frank” or whatever.

              1. Same way the re-incarnated are never serfs; they’re always royalty!
                I guess the serfs couldn’t afford the vig to the church.

              2. Before reading this comment, make sure you’re wearing diapers, because shit is about to get real.

                “My uncle Frank” has 12 letters. The phrase “Mannerly Fuck” also has 12 letters and is an anagram of “my uncle Frank”. Since there are two phrases: 12 x 2 = 24. 24 is the number of the original camps of Bohemian Grove. Bohemian Grove is where members of the Zionist Freemasons organize their yearly ritualistic sacrifice to Ba’al through gay sex orgies, or “mannerly fucks”. The ritual lasts 8 hours.

                24 divided by 8 is 3.

                A triangle has 3 sides.

                My uncle Frank is Illuminati confirmed.

                1. and I thought he was just being random when he said that Cherries Jubilee was his favorite dessert after hearing the news about Whitney Houston’s death.

  14. But will Rand get the Florida Man vote?

    Florida man pulls son’s tooth with his Camaro


      1. I was disappointed that it was a new Camaro, not an old 70s one. I mean, come on, it hardly even counts.

      2. HAHA! I read that as foot.

    1. I see the next generation of Florida Man is learning the trade the right way. We shall never run out of Florida Men!

    2. It wasn’t even an arrow.

  15. Shouldn’t there be a Rolling Stone hate piece up by now?

    1. Along with a simultaneous apology?

        1. Pathetic…

          1. Still employed by Rolling Stone, too. Guess they figured firing her would be fodder for the lawsuits that are suely headed their way.

        2. On Sunday, Erdely apologized to “Rolling Stone’s readers, to my Rolling Stone editors and colleagues, to the UVA community, and to any victims of sexual assault who may feel fearful as a result of my article.”

          I can’t help but notice she didn’t apologize to her victims.

          And I’m shocked.

          1. Isn’t that covered by “victims of sexual assault”? It’s a pretty broad category these days.

            1. I believe FdA meant “victims of defamation”.

              1. We’re all victime of sexual assualt, HM. Especially those who read Sugarfree’s fanfic.

  16. Most of the rich are constantly guilty. The human emotion philosophy of the moneyed is rarely discussed but most of the rich and ultra-rich suffer with tremendous regret because they drive and live on thoroughfares of the wanting and lost. Most riches are passed on, procured with luck, or gathered with pluck… the plucky rich can handle the guilt- the rest are Democrats.

    1. “most of the rich and ultra-rich suffer with tremendous regret because they drive and live on thoroughfares of the wanting and lost. Most riches are passed on, procured with luck, or gathered with pluck…”

      AC, I think we need some cites for that.
      As I recall, there are few families which stay rich over many generations; it tends to get pissed away.

  17. Nick Gillespie would make all these presidents.

  18. THe more presidential Paul becomes the more Libertarian he sheds.

  19. Rand Paul is kind of pandering to libertarians. While I do think that he believes that Republicans should be more live and let live, I don’t think he thinks it’s necessary for them to win. He knows that they’ll win anyway, but he obviously doesn’t want it to be a conventional GOP candidate. Btw, Romney may have been a dud but a Republican wasn’t going to win that election anyway.

    1. And btw, I’m not saying this like it’s a bad thing. I’m just pointing out that he’s being shrewd.

  20. The Nolan chart is so un-nuanced as to be useless for determining who is and isn’t a libertarian.
    Nolan admitted that to me and stated the chart was most useful in giving an opening talking point to those who scored in the libertarian quadrant but hardly indicated that person was anything other than possibly susceptible to further discussion.

  21. “If you ask people [in Silicon Valley], “Are you more fiscally conservative? Less taxes than the president? Less regulations?” they’ll say, “Yeah, I’m more conservative than the president.” “Are you more moderate, more liberal than the Republicans on social issues?” They’ll say, “yes.””

    Show me a Silicon valley dweller (or someone elsewhere in the country) who calls themselves a social liberal or (Lord forbid) a social moderate, and I’ll almost certainly be able to show you someone who supports

    -“common-sense laws against gun violence”

    -higher cigarette taxes

    -waging a crusade against the campus rape epidemic

    -government-funded abortions

    -“public accomodations” laws with fairly limited exemptions

    1. And I may very well be able to show you someone who carried a “hands up, don’t shoot” sign in a demonstration

      not to mention buying overpriced coffee

      and being skeptical of school choice

  22. Democrats keep winning without that “live and let live” schtick; Why does anyone else need it?

  23. Another Paul Rand thread completely raped by our resident stroke victim. Here’s the list Hihn must obsessively get into almost every thread he shits on.

    1. Paul is an extreme social conservative – check
    2. The Libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. – check
    3. A majority of people have been libertarian for over 30 years. – check
    4. (snicker) – check
    5. (laughing) – check
    6. You’re bullying me – check
    7. You’ve verbally aggressed against me – check
    8. Declare himself winner of every comment. – check
    9. Post link to the same thing over and over and claim victory. – check

    I have read some of your posts on other subjects (abortion for one) and when you aren’t being a condescending prick, you’re reasons seem well thought out. I suspect if you quit posting like a teenage girl (laughing, snicker, etc.) people would engage you in a more friendly manner and they may actually listen to you and change their stance on issues you find important. Endlessly posting the same things over and over (the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians) just feeds the point that you seem to be a trollish stroke victim.

    The endless cries of bullying and aggression make you sound like a Progressive SJW who wants all speech and opinion that is contrary to yours silenced. I’m certain this will have no effect and you will continue to shit all over threads but I at least tried. Your obsessive need to be the one true scotsmen like Bo will just get you put in the same camp as him.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.