Is Rand Paul Listening to Frank J.?

So Rand Paul has come out for getting the state out of marriage… which is what I just argued Monday. Do you think I’m influencing Rand Paul?

A lot of people are talking about him as a candidate in 2016, so if my own 2016 bid doesn’t work out, it will be good to at least have the ear of the president. Because people really need to listen to me more.

I mean, during the Obama presidency, we’ve made absolutely no progress on genetically resurrecting dinosaurs so we can put rocket launchers on them. None.

Now think of what will happen if Rand Paul combines his libertarian message with dinosaurs as cyborg killing machines — he’d basically win all the youth vote. And I don’t see how the dinosaurs clashes with his usual message as long as it’s well-defined when the dinosaurs get deployed, it’s never on American soil, and Congress gets a say.

And do you think his isolationists leanings means he’d be against starting a conflict with the moon? Hopefully not.

Well, I hope Rand Paul is reading and listening to me. Everybody learning from me is the only way to get our country out of this rut. Plus, the more people that buy my books, the better for the economy or something.

Send to Kindle
1 Star (Hated it)2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (Awesome) (3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)


  1. Rand Paul a candidate in 2016?

    I think you mean Ross Perot part II and another Clinton in the Whitehouse.

    All he will do is divide the right even further and ensure that Hillary wins.


  2. You ruined the Internet, Carpenter. I was going to say something marginally funny but now I forgot.


  3. gee whiz Jimmy…
    I’m sorry I ‘ruined the Internet’ for you but Libertarians only seem to be concerned with the promotion of degenerate, unacceptable and morally perverse activity. They have no concept at all of the consequences of those immoral actions, especially on the children who are raised by drug addicted parents or by sexual deviants.

    This is just as stupid as wanting to legalize Heroin or like Ron Paul ranting against spending Tax Dollars to combat Child Pornography on Constitutional grounds. During a House vote (in 2002) 413 Republicans and Democrats voted to pass the “Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002”. Ron Paul voted against it.

    once again, I’m sorry Jimmy, but that is what Libertarianism ‘IS’.


  4. Since I argued against the state being against marriage like six months ago…are they listening to me? Hmm?

    But yeah, Rand Paul is just a nut that fell from the nut tree as I argued recently.

    Oh, and Carpenter with your “libertarians promote degenerate activity” hogwash. No. They don’t. I wouldn’t consider myself a “pure” libertarian, but I am pretty libertarian as things go. To say that government ought to not stick their noses in other people’s business is not to say they endorse all of the business that people are up to. What libertarians believe in is that choices mete out consequences and don’t require some nanny government to play the middle man. Whether you believe those consequences come from God or nature, consequences are always the result of poor decisions. What libertarians believe is that such consequences ought to be fully realized by the individuals that make those bad decisions…not by either government punishment or government harboring.

    Government is a double-edged sword. As generation Y can attest. If you remove consequences from life, you breed a horrible generation of individuals that have no concept of risk and reward, or the realization of consequences for their actions. They believe that they are simply entitled to certain things. And damn the politician that would deny them those things. Conservatism says that the government should regulate people’s lives based on morals, to prevent such consequences. Leftists say that government should regulate people’s lives in order to design a more perfect social order. Either way…each ideology promotes the idea of engineering people’s lives through government.

    Libertarianism, on the other hand, says that government cannot do this. So, if you think it can, then you have to consider the primary problem with such a notion, from a moral and presumably Christian point of view: that man can regulate man without error. Is that possible? Or is the idea that the morality of the individual is between God and the individual true? As Christ implied it was.

    Render unto Caesar that which is his…but don’t give him a nickle more than his due.



Comments are closed.