# Liberty Movement > Rand Paul Forum >  antiwar.com vs Rand

## cindy25

they really do not like Rand

----------


## LibertyEagle

Yes, and because of that, they have become my enemy.

I'm really sick of this crap of the so-called liberty movement shooting their own guys and I have decided that those engaged in doing that shooting are wolves in sheep's clothing.

----------


## compromise

AntiWar.com pander to the left a lot. They are the sort of people who would support Kucinich over Rand.

----------


## itshappening

I wouldn't worry  about it too much, they're never happy with anyone.

----------


## jmdrake

Oh come on guys.  Wake up and get a clue as to what's going on.  In order for Rand to endear himself to the teocon base he's going to have to say things to piss off the hardcore antiwar crowd.  That Justin Ramaindo is unhappy with Rand is good for Rand.  When some teocon tries to say "Don't support Rand because he's an isolationist who doesn't understand the threat of radical Islam just like his dad", Rand supporters can say "That's not true.  Look, even some of Ron's supporters are wary of Rand."  Plus seeing that there are people who will hold Rand's feet to the fire will help keep him grounded if he ever is tempted to go to the darkside.  It's win/win.

----------


## itshappening

> Oh come on guys.  Wake up and get a clue as to what's going on.  In order for Rand to endear himself to the teocon base he's going to have to say things to piss off the hardcore antiwar crowd.  That Justin Ramaindo is unhappy with Rand is good for Rand.  When some teocon tries to say "Don't support Rand because he's an isolationist who doesn't understand the threat of radical Islam just like his dad", Rand supporters can say "That's not true.  Look, even some of Ron's supporters are wary of Rand."  Plus seeing that there are people who will hold Rand's feet to the fire will help keep him grounded if he ever is tempted to go to the darkside.  It's win/win.


These people don't believe in winning - or doing what it takes to win - they would prefer Rand to sit in the senate for 24 years and cast no votes so they can nod approvingly.

I don't think Rand wants to do that.  I think he would prefer running his practice again than sitting in the senate for decades.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

The antiwar.com crowd is immensely small and ineffectual.  In all the years that the site has been around the only place I have ever heard it, or any of the authors, mentioned is online.  The reach they have does not extend that far into the real world.  Pay them no mind.

----------


## Brett85

> Oh come on guys.  Wake up and get a clue as to what's going on.  In order for Rand to endear himself to the teocon base he's going to have to say things to piss off the hardcore antiwar crowd.  That Justin Ramaindo is unhappy with Rand is good for Rand.  When some teocon tries to say "Don't support Rand because he's an isolationist who doesn't understand the threat of radical Islam just like his dad", Rand supporters can say "That's not true.  Look, even some of Ron's supporters are wary of Rand."  Plus seeing that there are people who will hold Rand's feet to the fire will help keep him grounded if he ever is tempted to go to the darkside.  It's win/win.


I agree.  Those people serve a useful purpose.

----------


## radiofriendly

> Oh come on guys.  Wake up and get a clue as to what's going on.  In order for Rand to endear himself to the teocon base he's going to have to say things to piss off the hardcore antiwar crowd.  That Justin Ramaindo is unhappy with Rand is good for Rand.  When some teocon tries to say "Don't support Rand because he's an isolationist who doesn't understand the threat of radical Islam just like his dad", Rand supporters can say "That's not true.  Look, even some of Ron's supporters are wary of Rand."  Plus seeing that there are people who will hold Rand's feet to the fire will help keep him grounded if he ever is tempted to go to the darkside.  It's win/win.


Yep, they actually help. And having the purist/anarchist crowd not supporting Sen. Paul is only helpful in an election...elections that they don't believe in voting in...

----------


## BlackTerrel

> The antiwar.com crowd is immensely small and ineffectual.  In all the years that the site has been around the only place I have ever heard it, or any of the authors, mentioned is online.  The reach they have does not extend that far into the real world.  Pay them no mind.


This.  Basically.

If I asked 100 people down the street from me about anti-war.com I would be surprised if even 1 has heard of it - good or bad.

----------


## Pisces

> they really do not like Rand


Hell hath no fury like a thinktank scorned.

----------


## fr33

> Oh come on guys.  Wake up and get a clue as to what's going on.  In order for Rand to endear himself to the teocon base he's going to have to say things to piss off the hardcore antiwar crowd.  That Justin Ramaindo is unhappy with Rand is good for Rand.  When some teocon tries to say "Don't support Rand because he's an isolationist who doesn't understand the threat of radical Islam just like his dad", Rand supporters can say "That's not true.  Look, even some of Ron's supporters are wary of Rand."  Plus seeing that there are people who will hold Rand's feet to the fire will help keep him grounded if he ever is tempted to go to the darkside.  It's win/win.





> The antiwar.com crowd is immensely small and ineffectual.  In all the years that the site has been around the only place I have ever heard it, or any of the authors, mentioned is online.  The reach they have does not extend that far into the real world.  Pay them no mind.


I understand what both of you are saying BUT.... don't be surprised if not enough people show up at the local/state/national level for the delegate strategy. This Rand strategy is a calculated one but it involves turning off a passionate segment of the liberty movement while trying to co-opt the establishment.. Things are not going to be the same at the grassroots level as they were for Ron.

----------


## misean

> Hell hath no fury like a thinktank scorned.


That website isn't a think tank. It's just some $#@! ranting on the internet that attracts other angry $#@!s.

Sort of agree with jmdrakes statement as well.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> These people don't believe in winning - or doing what it takes to win - they would prefer Rand to sit in the senate for 24 years and cast no votes so they can nod approvingly.
> 
> I don't think Rand wants to do that.  I think he would prefer running his practice again than sitting in the senate for decades.


I think I would have to agree with Dr. Carson's take on the "winning" thing.  See the video at http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Obama-Present

----------


## green73

> That website isn't a think tank. It's just some $#@! ranting on the internet that attracts other angry $#@!s.


Man, you are one ignorant blowhard.

----------


## Pisces

> That website isn't a think tank. It's just some $#@! ranting on the internet that attracts other angry $#@!s.
> 
> Sort of agree with jmdrakes statement as well.


It's more than one guy. Thinktank probably is a stretch though. I'm not sure what the exact term for them is. I do think a large part of their hatred for Rand is that he doesn't seem to care much what they think. They've probably gotten most of their traffic and attention from Ron Paul's campaigns and they feel that Rand is endangering all of that. There's more to this than just honest disagreement with Rand as is obvious from the disproportionate amount of time they spend attacking him.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> they really do not like Rand


Maybe they just don't like war.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

I've ripped them in the past but I actually like the way some of their articles break down the ins and outs of what's going on in certain places around the globe. However, I loathe JR for his ongoing Rand inquisition as if he's public enemy number one on foreign policy.

----------


## jct74

> It's just some $#@! ranting on the internet that attracts other angry $#@!s.


I don't agree with the 2nd part of that statement but Scott Horton definitely comes across as an $#@!.  He really has a delusional hatred for Rand Paul and embarrasses/discredits himself with some of the things he says... Rand is a douche, Rand needs a gang beatdown from his family, Rand should never have been born, etc.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXBkThilYmQ

----------


## Cowlesy

Yes, pile on Rand Paul, anti-war.com, but pay no mind to Graham, McCain, Ayotte, Kerry, Rubio or think-tankers who really get their policies in place like FPI'rs, Kagan Bros team Weekly Standard, etc.

By all means, go after the first senator on the right for a long time that has gone against the senate's grain.

Makes sense.  Good use of resources.

----------


## TheGrinch

> Yes, pile on Rand Paul, anti-war.com, but pay no mind to Graham, McCain, Ayotte, Kerry, Rubio or think-tankers who really get their policies in place like FPI'rs, Kagan Bros team Weekly Standard, etc.
> 
> By all means, go after the first senator on the right for a long time that has gone against the senate's grain.
> 
> Makes sense.  Good use of resources.


Was thinking the same thing. Sounds remarkably like Bush's "you're either with us or the terrorists". What happened to respectful disagreement of tactics. I see some here ready to equate Rand with a neocon. Its just silly and partisan.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Yes, pile on Rand Paul, anti-war.com, but pay no mind to Graham, McCain, Ayotte, Kerry, Rubio or think-tankers who really get their policies in place like FPI'rs, Kagan Bros team Weekly Standard, etc.
> 
> By all means, go after the first senator on the right for a long time that has gone against the senate's grain.
> 
> Makes sense.  Good use of resources.


Antiwar.com HAS piled on those other Senators, quite often in fact.  I think Antiwar.com speaks for many of Rand's Dad's supporters who may have expected Rand would follow more closely in his father's footsteps, considering Ron's supporters helped Rand to win his Senate seat.

----------


## matt0611

> Was thinking the same thing. Sounds remarkably like Bush's "you're either with us or the terrorists". What happened to respectful disagreement of tactics. I see some here ready to equate Rand with a neocon. Its just silly and partisan.



Exactly. 

Its like they have a vendetta against Rand. This goes the same with Robert Wenzel too. 

If you disagree with Rand, fine, I have no problem with you doing so and respectfully explaining why but I'm sick of the way that certain crowd has gone after him. I've lost my respect for them and no longer subscribe / read them anymore.

----------


## itshappening

> Antiwar.com HAS piled on those other Senators, quite often in fact.  I think Antiwar.com speaks for many of Rand's Dad's supporters who *may have expected Rand would follow more closely in his father's footsteps*, considering Ron's supporters helped Rand to win his Senate seat.


But he doesn't want to follow in his dads footsteps.  He wants to actually win presidential campaigns and not educate or be in congress for 20 odd years. I think he'd be more happy running his practice again.  Rand is only going to be around for a short while .

----------


## cajuncocoa

Remember how people wondered what happened to the "antiwar Left" after Obama got elected?  In a similar manner, we will wonder what  happened to "Ron Paul non-interventionism" the more Rand and his supporters embrace the foreign policy stance of Glenn Beck.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *But he doesn't want to follow in his dads footsteps.*  He wants to actually win presidential campaigns and not educate or be in congress for 20 odd years. I think he'd be more happy running his practice again.  Rand is only going to be around for a short while .


Duh.  But just a couple of weeks ago you guys were telling us that "Rand is JUST LIKE his Dad!!"   

BTW, I agree with your assessment that Rand will only be around for a short while.

----------


## sailingaway

> Duh.  But just a couple of weeks ago you guys were telling us that "Rand is JUST LIKE his Dad!!"   
> 
> BTW, I agree with your assessment that Rand will only be around for a short while.


OK, cool it.

Antiwar expresses an opinion, Kristol expresses an opinion, and a lot of people are just waiting to see.  Consistency would be nice, in my personal deliberations, but everyone has their own views.  Not a ton of people were retweeting either Raimondo or the neocons that I saw, on this.  There wasn't much chatter on it.  I think personally that a lot of people are paying attention, but aren't decided.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> OK, cool it.


Message received.

----------


## itshappening

> Duh.  But just a couple of weeks ago you guys were telling us that "Rand is JUST LIKE his Dad!!"   
> 
> BTW, I agree with your assessment that Rand will only be around for a short while.


He is but unlike his dad he can (and has) won statewide primaries and elections.

----------


## jmdrake

> These people don't believe in winning - or doing what it takes to win - they would prefer Rand to sit in the senate for 24 years and cast no votes so they can nod approvingly.
> 
> I don't think Rand wants to do that.  I think he would prefer running his practice again than sitting in the senate for decades.


These people?  You don't get it.  We are "these people".  We are the ones who looked in dismay as some of our antiwar friends on the left bought the Obama kool-aid and honestly believed he was going to bring the troops home even though he said he wouldn't.  So I respect Rand's antiwar critics.  It would be hypocritical of me not to.  And more importantly *their criticism of Rand only helps Rand*.  So why wring your hands about it?  If I had some extra cash I'd donate to antiwar.com right now.  It's time for this movement to grow up and realize that we don't have to 100% support every initiative or candidate in order to be effective as long as we keep pushing the same broad goals.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I don't agree with the 2nd part of that statement but Scott Horton definitely comes across as an $#@!.  He really has a delusional hatred for Rand Paul and embarrasses/discredits himself with some of the things he says... Rand is a douche, Rand needs a gang beatdown from his family, Rand should never have been born, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXBkThilYmQ



Wow.  Dude has some issues.

And at 94 views doesn't sound like most give a $#@! what he says.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

So...  are they saying they rather wuold have obama or another romney-like GOP candidate?

----------


## jmdrake

> I understand what both of you are saying BUT.... don't be surprised if not enough people show up at the local/state/national level for the delegate strategy. This Rand strategy is a calculated one but it involves turning off a passionate segment of the liberty movement while trying to co-opt the establishment.. Things are not going to be the same at the grassroots level as they were for Ron.


You're exactly right.  It's a risk.  It's a risk I was talking about in 2010 but nobody else would listen.  Now the die has been cast, the arrow notched and drawn, and I see no other alternative but to hope for the best.  Rand, Benton and Tate will push the electoral front.  Ron, Woods and others will push the educational front.  It's like one of those revolutionary movements that has a militant wing and a political wing that stay at arm's length from each other.  Maybe it will work.  Maybe it won't.  God give me the courage to change the things I can change, the serenity to accept what I cannot and the wisdom to know the difference.

----------


## sailingaway

> So...  are they saying they rather wuold have obama or another romney-like GOP candidate?


I think they are hoping someone else appears before 2016.

----------


## green73

> Wow.  Dude has some issues.
> 
> And at 94 views doesn't sound like most give a $#@! what he says.


Yeah, he was not happy about Rand endorsing Romney. GET OVER IT SCOTT!

BTW, Scott did not make the video. Some dude with 7 subscribers did.

----------


## Reece

> Yes, and because of that, they have become my enemy.
> 
> I'm really sick of this crap of the so-called liberty movement shooting their own guys and I have decided that those engaged in doing that shooting are wolves in sheep's clothing.


Not all of them are anti-Rand.  Even Raimondo had a semi pro-Rand article recently, here: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...bout-benghazi/




> In spite of the catcalls from MSNBC and ThinkProgress, Rand Paul is on to something here.


In any case, the site focuses almost entirely on foreign policy matters, and Rand has been talking a lot about foreign policy recently.  Despite his great voting record (with the exception of the Iran sanctions) not everything he has said has followed along with what the anti-war crowd believes.  They are going to report on it, and are going to disagree with him sometimes.  I don't think it's a good reason to declare them an enemy, especially considering the other great stuff they put out.

----------


## itshappening

> So...  are they saying they rather wuold have obama or another romney-like GOP candidate?


Yes, they would.  They would prefer to lose every election .

----------


## green73

> Not all of them are anti-Rand.  Even Raimondo had a semi pro-Rand article recently, here: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2...bout-benghazi/
> 
> In any case, the site focuses almost entirely on foreign policy matters, and Rand has been talking a lot about foreign policy recently.  Despite his great voting record (with the exception of the Iran sanctions) not everything he has said has followed along with what the anti-war crowd believes.  They are going to report on it, and are going to disagree with him sometimes.  I don't think it's a good reason to declare them an enemy, especially considering the other great stuff they put out.


Why would any of their critics here know that? They aren't readers, never were.  All they know of the site is that there's been criticism of Rand.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> You're exactly right.  It's a risk.  It's a risk I was talking about in 2010 but nobody else would listen.  Now the die has been cast, the arrow notched and drawn, and I see no other alternative but to hope for the best.  Rand, Benton and Tate will push the electoral front.  Ron, Woods and others will push the educational front.  It's like one of those revolutionary movements that has a militant wing and a political wing that stay at arm's length from each other.  Maybe it will work.  Maybe it won't.  God *give me the courage to change the things I can change, the serenity to accept what I cannot and the wisdom to know the difference.*


And the good sense to realize when opportunities fall into my lap ...

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Remember how people wondered what happened to the "antiwar Left" after Obama got elected?  In a similar manner, we will wonder what  happened to "Ron Paul non-interventionism" the more Rand and his supporters embrace the foreign policy stance of Glenn Beck.


Actually, we won't wonder any such thing - because there is a crucial difference between the situations with respect to the anti-war left _vis-a-vis_ Obama (on the one hand) and Ron Paul interventionists _vis-a-vis_ Rand Paul (on the other hand).

The difference is that despite Obama's rhetoric, his actual policies turned out to be nothing  more than Bushism redux. Obama is just more of the "same old same old". Therefore, the anti-war left had little choice  but to either (1) hypocritically "shut up and go away" because Obama was "their guy" (which is exactly what most of it did), or (2) entirely renounce Obama's policies and actions and stick to their principles (which is what a few lonely and honorable voices such as Glenn Greenwald chose to do).

Rand  Paul, however, represents (in both rhetoric and policy) a genuine and  significant shift away from neo-connish Bushism. Granted, it does NOT go  as far as us non-interventionists would like - but it is also NOT more of the "same old same old". Therefore, we Ron Paul non-interventionists don't have any reason to "shut up and go away".  Just the opposite, in fact - we are being given an opportunity to press our case  for even more substantial movement towards non-interventionism.

Whether it is his intention to do so or not (I have no use for the "Rand Paul is a secret non-interventionist" line), Rand Paul is giving us a "boost up" and providing the opportunity for us non-interventionists to gain wider acceptance of our views. Because his policies were no different from what came before, Obama was not able to afford the anti-war left with that kind of platform.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Maybe they just don't like war.


Than they would like Rand.  If they think Rand is not drastically more antiwar than all the current alternatives then they aren't being genuine.  If they have someone who is more antiwar and is viable, let them offer him/her up.  Otherwise, they are saying no war > a ton of war >  less war.  That is completely illogical.  If they were purely antiwar they would support any progress towards more peace.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Whether it is his intention to do so or not, Rand Paul is giving us a "boost up" and providing the opportunity for us non-interventionists to gain wider acceptance of our views. Because his policies were no different from what came before, Obama was not able to afford the anti-war left with that kind of platform.


agreed

----------


## anaconda

> Hell hath no fury like a thinktank scorned.



Big LOL.

----------


## anaconda

> Than they would like Rand.  If they think Rand is not drastically more antiwar than all the current alternatives then they aren't being genuine.  If they have someone who is more antiwar and is viable, let them offer him/her up.  Otherwise, they are saying no war > a ton of war >  less war.  That is completely illogical.  If they were purely antiwar they would support any progress towards more peace.


Rand is infinitely more antiwar than all of the Obama drone voters in my yuppie northeast Oakland neighborhood. The left stand for nothing any longer, except being mad at thy neighbor.

----------


## messana

> If they have someone who is more antiwar and is viable, let them offer him/her up.  Otherwise, they are saying no war > a ton of war >  less war.  That is completely illogical.  If they were purely antiwar they would support any progress towards more peace.


Then they might as well rename their site lesswar.com

----------


## anaconda

> Rand Paul is giving us a "boost up" and providing the opportunity for us non-interventionists to gain wider acceptance of our views.


Well said. And, Rand seems more like an utter genius to me with every passing month.

----------


## cindy25

> I wouldn't worry  about it too much, they're never happy with anyone.


they were big supporters of Ron, and Ron always said it was the first site he read in the morning.

----------


## Brett85

> Then they might as well rename their site lesswar.com


So they're pacifists who don't even believe in going to war when our country has been attacked?

----------


## supermario21

> So they're pacifists who don't even believe in going to war when our country has been attacked?


Barbara Lee (Oakland) didn't.

----------


## Brett85

> Barbara Lee (Oakland) didn't.


I just don't know of very many people who are truly "anti war" in the sense that we should never go to war.  Perhaps that woman is, but I think most of us are just "anti pre-emptive war."  I think most libertarians and paleo conservatives support defensive wars.

----------


## cindy25

attack has to also be defined.  Pearl Harbor was an attack.  911 was not.  

and even Pearl Harbor justified war against Japan only, not Germany or Italy.

----------


## supermario21

> I just don't know of very many people who are truly "anti war" in the sense that we should never go to war.  Perhaps that woman is, but I think most of us are just "anti pre-emptive war."  I think most libertarians and paleo conservatives support defensive wars.


I agree, for sure. If we were attacked, I'd support war.

----------


## Brett85

> attack has to also be defined.  Pearl Harbor was an attack.  911 was not.  
> 
> and even Pearl Harbor justified war against Japan only, not Germany or Italy.


How in the world was 9-11 not an attack?

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> I just don't know of very many people who are truly "anti war" in the sense that we should never go to war.  Perhaps that woman is, but I think most of us are just "anti pre-emptive war."  I think most libertarians and paleo conservatives support defensive wars.


As I see it the fundamental difference between right non-interventionists and left non-interventionists (for lack of a better term) is their view of our country, military and the world around us.  

The right believes that we have made some FP errors (interventionism) and those errors have unintended consequences (i.e. stoking the fire), we are proud of our military men and women for the sacrifice they make and we believe that there are nations in this world who have a fundamentally flawed way of thinking and because of this are determined to overthrow what is "Western" - today that is radical Islam, in the past it was Communism. 

The left harbors a belief that America is evil, that our military is made up of largely hopped up baby killers and that everyone else in the world would be peaceful if not for us. 

So in that sense the right holds a more realistic view and the left holds a more Utopian view.  Of course, like any issue it isn't that black and white, but that is a generalization that I think fits well to describe how far apart the two sides are, even though they both hold to a non-interventionist view.

----------


## Brett85

> As I see it the fundamental difference between right non-interventionists and left non-interventionists (for lack of a better term) is their view of our country, military and the world around us.  
> 
> The right believes that we have made some FP errors (interventionism) and those errors have unintended consequences (i.e. stoking the fire), we are proud of our military men and women for the sacrifice they make and we believe that there are nations in this world who have a fundamentally flawed way of thinking and because of this are determined to overthrow what is "Western" - today that is radical Islam, in the past it was Communism. 
> 
> The left harbors a belief that America is evil, that our military is made up of largely hopped up baby killers and that everyone else in the world would be peaceful if not for us. 
> 
> So in that sense the right holds a more realistic view and the left holds a more Utopian view.  Of course, like any issue it isn't that black and white, but that is a generalization that I think fits well to describe how far apart the two sides are, even though they both hold to a non-interventionist view.


I think that's pretty accurate.

----------


## BlackJack

> As I see it the fundamental difference between right non-interventionists and left non-interventionists (for lack of a better term) is their view of our country, military and the world around us.  
> 
> The right believes that we have made some FP errors (interventionism) and those errors have unintended consequences (i.e. stoking the fire), we are proud of our military men and women for the sacrifice they make and we believe that there are nations in this world who have a fundamentally flawed way of thinking and because of this are determined to overthrow what is "Western" - today that is radical Islam, in the past it was Communism. 
> 
> The left harbors a belief that America is evil, that our military is made up of largely hopped up baby killers and that everyone else in the world would be peaceful if not for us. 
> 
> So in that sense the right holds a more realistic view and the left holds a more Utopian view.  Of course, like any issue it isn't that black and white, but that is a generalization that I think fits well to describe how far apart the two sides are, even though they both hold to a non-interventionist view.


Nice generalization there.

----------


## matt0611

> attack has to also be defined.  Pearl Harbor was an attack.  911 was not.  
> 
> and even Pearl Harbor justified war against Japan only, not Germany or Italy.


Germany declared war on the United States...

I would say if a country declares war on the US that it justifies an attack.

----------


## supermario21

Don't forget German U-boats were also sinking American ships right off the East Coast for close to 2 years before Pearl Harbor.

----------


## July

> As I see it the fundamental difference between right non-interventionists and left non-interventionists (for lack of a better term) is their view of our country, military and the world around us.  
> 
> The right believes that we have made some FP errors (interventionism) and those errors have unintended consequences (i.e. stoking the fire), we are proud of our military men and women for the sacrifice they make and we believe that there are nations in this world who have a fundamentally flawed way of thinking and because of this are determined to overthrow what is "Western" - today that is radical Islam, in the past it was Communism. 
> 
> The left harbors a belief that America is evil, that our military is made up of largely hopped up baby killers and that everyone else in the world would be peaceful if not for us. 
> 
> So in that sense the right holds a more realistic view and the left holds a more Utopian view.  Of course, like any issue it isn't that black and white, but that is a generalization that I think fits well to describe how far apart the two sides are, even though they both hold to a non-interventionist view.


Interesting, I think that is fairly accurate in general. I think the reality is somewhere in between, though. I think what has been traditionally important to conservatives is a sense of honor. Pride in respecting those who put their lives on the line to defend us comes from a recognition of honor. But many seem to have lost the ability to discern when the military is acting honorably or dishonorably, and the concept of honor in general has been corrupted with an idealistic view that the military is _always_ honorable, and we are alway justly crusading to counter an evil nation/culture/religion/ideology/tactic/etc.

That is kinda what I got out of Rand's speech when he talked about there being two extremes--being everywhere and being nowhere. Maybe he's talking literally about military and number of entanglements/bases, etc. But, to me, I think it's idealism versus realism...and not just in foreign policy but as a worldview. When we're so polarized to extreme ends we sometimes cannot discern reality clearly or objectively. This might just be my personal bias, since I don't really consider myself to be either idealist or realist. But I feel like Americans are so locked into this extreme black and white/good versus evil mindset, and this is reinforced the by the school systems, the media, politicians, etc...it's to the point we can't make informed decisions anymore. It's complete demoralization.

----------


## No Free Beer

> attack has to also be defined.  Pearl Harbor was an attack.  911 was not.  
> 
> and even Pearl Harbor justified war against Japan only, not Germany or Italy.


#FAIL.

----------


## itshappening

I won't link to it but EPJ have a podcast with Raimondo and they were attacking Rand.  According to him he's not trying to win over the neocons as they're never going to back him, he's trying to win over Christian fundamentalists in Iowa and South Carolina but that it will fail as there will be other candidates on the stage that will woo them and who will be more hardcore and appealing to them.  He also doesn't think Rand will inspire the same energy and backing that Ron Paul did due to his decades of having a consistent message, although he fails to point out that this didn't get him more than 25% in any single state and that Rand has actually won statewide before so has shown he can appeal to a wider audience in Kentucky and that he is now seeking to do in Iowa.

They then made fun of his hair and appearance with Raimondo declaring that Rand 'looks like a teenager'.

----------


## itshappening

He also thought the average voter in Iowa will probably think Ron Paul is running again when they go to their caucus and that would count against him, although I can't believe that for a second as there will be a massive campaign with Rand a visible presence on TV, newspapers and shaking hands on the ground and at caucus sites across the state there will be advocates who will explain who he is and what he stands for so the caucus goers who will be tuned in will know all about him and know that it isn't Ron Paul.  

I didn't find it convincing at all.  He seems to think Rand 'will end up like Bachmann' but Backhann again is just a backbencher (like Ron) who had a lot less support than Ron and had never won statewide.  Indeed, she can barely win her own district these days never mind a state like Iowa.  Rand Paul is far superior to Bachmann.  

It seems to me they hope he will fizzle out and will end up doing poorly.  Raimondo doesn't believe he can win the nomination despite the fact that he could be a strong contender in Iowa, New Hampshire and SC because of Ron Paul's left over organization and there is a clear path to  victory (30%+ of the vote) in the early states and he's polling a lot better than Ron ever did at such an early stage.

----------


## July

> They then made fun of his hair and appearance with Raimondo declaring that Rand 'looks like a teenager'.


Eh, again with the hair? Well people (especially on the left) do seem bizarrely fixated on Rand's hair (just look at the comment section of any HuffPost article or liberal blog that mentions Rand). I have a theory as to why so many are so offended by his appearance (he does not look like what they expect a politician should be- elite, intellectual, upper class, etc)... for all their squawking about equality and hatred of the rich upper classes, it's hypocrisy at it's finest.

----------


## itshappening

> Eh, again with the hair? Well people (especially on the left) do seem bizarrely fixated on Rand's hair (just look at the comment section of any HuffPost article or liberal blog that mentions Rand). I have a theory as to why so many are so offended by his appearance (he does not look like what they expect a politician should be- elite, intellectual, upper class, etc)... for all their squawking about equality and hatred of the rich upper classes, it's hypocrisy at it's finest.


He's a country doctor and it drives them mad.  

I can imagine going to see him about my eye's and being extremely comfortable so when he tells them there's a debt crisis and that government must be massively cut they hate it.

----------


## robert68

> they really do not like Rand


Well they are antiwar. And Rand Paul's favorite "historian" on the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, quoted in his foreign policy speech, has been the most influential neocon "historian" on US foreign policy. From "The `Clash of Civilizations'", Peter Waldman /Wall Street Journal, Feb 3, 2004:

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/library/wf-214.htm



> Eight days after the Sept. 11 attacks, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Mr. Lewis addressed the U.S. Defense Policy Board. Mr. Lewis and a friend, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi -- now a member of the interim Iraqi Governing Council -- argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future, says Mr. Perle, who then headed the policy board.
> 
>     A few months later, in a private dinner with Dick Cheney at the vice president's residence, Mr. Lewis explained why he was cautiously optimistic the U.S. could gradually build democracy in Iraq, say others who attended. Mr. Lewis also held forth on the dangers of appearing weak in the Muslim world, a lesson Mr. Cheney apparently took to heart. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" just before the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Cheney said: "I firmly believe, along with men like Bernard Lewis, who is one of the great students of that part of the world, that strong, firm U.S. response to terror and to threats to the United States would go a long way, frankly, toward calming things in that part of the world."
> 
>     The Lewis Doctrine, in effect, had become U.S. policy.
> 
>     "Bernard Lewis has been the single most important intellectual influence countering the conventional wisdom on managing the conflict between radical Islam and the West," says Mr. Perle, who remains a close adviser to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "The idea that a big part of the problem is failed societies on the Arab side is very important. That is not the point of view of the diplomatic establishment."..
> 
>     After Sept. 11, a book by Mr. Lewis called "What Went Wrong?" was a best-seller that launched the historian, at age 85, as an unlikely celebrity. Witty and a colorful storyteller, he hit the talk-show and lecture circuits, arguing in favor of U.S. intervention in Iraq as a first step toward democratic transformation in the Mideast.


Also, "Islamophobia's Scholarly Godfather".

----------


## jmdrake

> So they're pacifists who don't even believe in going to war when our country has been attacked?


There's a *HUGE* difference between going to war when attacked and saying "An attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S."   Why stop with just Israel?  And if a war on country X is an attack on the U.S. isn't that a recipe for endless foreign wars?  Come on folks.  Lets be honest with ourselves.  We give Rand a pass on some stuff because it's Rand.  But if we start blanketly justifying everything he does and says without the "I hope he really doesn't mean that" caveat, we are sunk as a movement.  And yes.  As Rand brings in more teocons there will be some who actually believe that we should go to war on behalf of Israel.  And they have a right to that belief.  That doesn't mean people who disagree have to shut up for fear of "hurting the movement".

----------


## cajuncocoa

> There's a *HUGE* difference between going to war when attacked and saying "An attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S."   Why stop with just Israel?  And if a war on country X is an attack on the U.S. isn't that a recipe for endless foreign wars?  Come on folks.  Lets be honest with ourselves.  We give Rand a pass on some stuff because it's Rand.  But if we start blanketly justifying everything he does and says without the "I hope he really doesn't mean that" caveat, we are sunk as a movement.  And yes.  As Rand brings in more teocons there will be some who actually believe that we should go to war on behalf of Israel.  And they have a right to that belief.  That doesn't mean people who disagree have to shut up for fear of "hurting the movement".


+rep

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I won't link to it but EPJ have a podcast with Raimondo and they were attacking Rand.  According to him he's not trying to win over the neocons as they're never going to back him, he's trying to win over Christian fundamentalists in Iowa and South Carolina but that it will fail as there will be other candidates on the stage that will woo them and who will be more hardcore and appealing to them.  He also doesn't think Rand will inspire the same energy and backing that Ron Paul did due to his decades of having a consistent message, although he fails to point out that this didn't get him more than 25% in any single state and that Rand has actually won statewide before so has shown he can appeal to a wider audience in Kentucky and that he is now seeking to do in Iowa.
> 
> They then made fun of his hair and appearance with Raimondo declaring that Rand 'looks like a teenager'.


Yeah, I didn't agree with Raimondo's analysis that Rand can't win or doesn't look Presidential. He looks the most like Reagan out of any of the GOP leaders, for $#@!s sake, and we know how much those guys fawn over that guy

----------


## Brett85

> There's a *HUGE* difference between going to war when attacked and saying "An attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S."   Why stop with just Israel?  And if a war on country X is an attack on the U.S. isn't that a recipe for endless foreign wars?  Come on folks.  Lets be honest with ourselves.  We give Rand a pass on some stuff because it's Rand.  But if we start blanketly justifying everything he does and says without the "I hope he really doesn't mean that" caveat, we are sunk as a movement.  And yes.  As Rand brings in more teocons there will be some who actually believe that we should go to war on behalf of Israel.  And they have a right to that belief.  That doesn't mean people who disagree have to shut up for fear of "hurting the movement".


I was just pointing out that the term "anti war" implies opposition to every war, even wars that are a result of an attack on our country.  A more accurate term would be "anti intervention."

----------


## RonPaul25

I for one have had enough and will NOT support Rand any longer.

----------


## green73

> +rep


++rep

----------


## green73

> I was just pointing out that the term "anti war" implies opposition to every war, even wars that are a result of an attack on our country.  A more accurate term would be "anti intervention."


You can be anti-murder and still kill someone in defense.

----------


## jmdrake

> I was just pointing out that the term "anti war" implies opposition to every war, even wars that are a result of an attack on our country.  A more accurate term would be "anti intervention."





> You can be anti-murder and still kill someone in defense.


Green73 hit the nail on the head.  You can exercise a right of self defense and still be antiwar.  And then there are those who believe non-violence is the answer.  Also 9/11 shows the danger of being too willing to go along with blanket war powers just because we were "attacked".  I think Ron Paul regrets that "yes" vote more than any other.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There's a *HUGE* difference between going to war when attacked and saying "An attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S."   Why stop with just Israel?  And if a war on country X is an attack on the U.S. isn't that a recipe for endless foreign wars?  Come on folks.  Lets be honest with ourselves.  We give Rand a pass on some stuff because it's Rand.  *But if we start blanketly justifying everything he does and says without the "I hope he really doesn't mean that" caveat, we are sunk as a movement.*  And yes.  As Rand brings in more teocons there will be some who actually believe that we should go to war on behalf of Israel.  And they have a right to that belief.  *That doesn't mean people who disagree have to shut up for fear of "hurting the movement".*


Thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!  This is all I've really been trying to say; particularly the bolded.

+rep

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

In order for Rand to prove himself as a viable contender in 2016 his focus is on the roughly 1 million voters that will vote in IA, NH and SC.  As I mentioned before in this thread, the antiwar.com crowd is a extremely small minority of voters.  They are, in large part, single issue voters who are looking for candidates that hold to a very specific view of FP (left-leaning non-interventionism).  Ron was popular with that crowd because he used certain "buzz words" that they like (American empire, close all the bases, bring all the troops home now, etc).  Rand will not pander to that crowd, because despite being a Jeffersonian, he does not hold their same core ideological views which I described earlier.

In the end does it matter what antiwar.com thinks about Rand?  Not really.  Their numbers are small and their influence is minimal at best.  Ron received around 160,000 votes in those first three contests in 2012.  Rand will need to vastly improve upon those numbers in order to be successful (for example using the winner's numbers from each of those three contests the total would be 370,000 votes.  Will those votes come from the readers of antiwar.com?  No.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

It's getting pretty scary over there.

----------


## K466

someone said it right earlier. They are anti-war, no matter who is helping the pro-war cause, they will oppose that.

Rand Paul will attract more rebuke because he is moving away from the anti-war positions instead of toward them.

If you think this is a good strategy fine but don't complain when this draws anti-war criticism. You should welcome it, in fact... Unless you are a warmonger, which I doubt...

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> someone said it right earlier. They are anti-war, no matter who is helping the pro-war cause, they will oppose that.
> 
> Rand Paul will attract more rebuke because he is moving away from the anti-war positions instead of toward them.


Fair to say, though I think the better way to phrase it would be to say that Rand is "moving away from THEIR anti-war positions..."

As a life long conservative non-interventionist, I find little of the writing on anti-war.com to be in line with my way of thinking.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> There's a *HUGE* difference between going to war when attacked and saying "An attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S."   Why stop with just Israel?  And if a war on country X is an attack on the U.S. isn't that a recipe for endless foreign wars?  Come on folks.  Lets be honest with ourselves.  We give Rand a pass on some stuff because it's Rand.  But if we start blanketly justifying everything he does and says without the "I hope he really doesn't mean that" caveat, we are sunk as a movement.  And yes.  As Rand brings in more teocons there will be some who actually believe that we should go to war on behalf of Israel.  And they have a right to that belief.  That doesn't mean people who disagree have to shut up for fear of "hurting the movement".


He didn't say "an attack on Israel is an attack on the US".  He said we should tell the rest of the world that.  He said we should make a threat (words).  It was still wrong and I don't like that he said it, but there is a * HUGE* difference.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

Oh and the criticism of their name is unwarranted.  I'm completely antiwar.  It doesn't mean that I don't think wars of defense are unjustified or shouldn't be fought, but I'm still opposed to all war.  I think it's atrocious and wish it didn't need to be fought ever.  The war being justified doesn't make it any less disgusting to me.  That's what is meant by the term antiwar.

"There is no such thing as a good war or a bad peace"- Benjamin Franklin

----------


## robert68

> Yeah, I didn't agree with Raimondo's analysis that Rand can't win or doesn't look Presidential. He looks the most like Reagan out of any of the GOP leaders, for $#@!s sake, and we know how much those guys fawn over that guy


In 1980, Reagan had been elected governor to the largest populated state in the US, twice, and in 1976 came within a few delegates of defeated a sitting President. He was 61, charismatic, and had a passionate conservative national political base, much larger than Rands, very well funded, and all without the use of the internet or interactive media.  And because appearance can matter in presidential politics ..... uh, even at 69 he had better hair.

----------


## TheGrinch

> In 1980, Reagan had been elected governor to the largest populated state in the US, twice, and in 1976 came within a few delegates of defeated a sitting President. He was 6’1”, charismatic, and had a passionate conservative national political base, much larger than Rand’s, very well funded, and all without the use of the internet or interactive media.  And because appearance can matter in presidential politics ..... uh, even at 69 he had better hair.


nvm, misunderstood the point

----------


## robert68

> I'm not sure I see your point.


I was only addressing his comparison of Reagan to Rand as a presidential candidate.

----------


## surf

this is my homepage - and I can't say I've ever noticed anything anti-Rand that I wouldn't consider to also be anti-war. anti-war has been one of my hot issues for years, and i'd argue it has also been one of Ron Paul's as well.

----------


## jmdrake

> He didn't say "an attack on Israel is an attack on the US".  He said we should tell the rest of the world that.  He said we should make a threat (words).  It was still wrong and I don't like that he said it, but there is a * HUGE* difference.


  Oh, so we should just lie to the rest of the world and say an attack on Israel is the same as an attack on the U.S.?  Come on dude.  Cut the bull$#@!.  I love Rand and all, but cut the bull$#@!.  There's no way any of us would be defending a statement like that if it wasn't Rand.  I'm hopeful that Rand will continue doing the right thing because he doesn't consistently say it.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Oh, so we should just lie to the rest of the world and say an attack on Israel is the same as an attack on the U.S.?  Come on dude.  Cut the bull$#@!.  I love Rand and all, but cut the bull$#@!.  There's no way any of us would be defending a statement like that if it wasn't Rand.  I'm hopeful that Rand will continue doing the right thing because he doesn't consistently say it.


Yeah, that's why I said, "It was still wrong and I don't like that he said it" because I think we should just lie to the rest of the world and I agree with him completely.  Did you read what I wrote?  I was just asking that he not be misquoted especially if the "paraphrasing" misconstrues the intent of what he said.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah, that's why I said, "It was still wrong and I don't like that he said it" because I think we should just lie to the rest of the world and I agree with him completely.  Did you read what I wrote?  I was just asking that he not be misquoted especially if the "paraphrasing" misconstrues the intent of what he said.


It's a distinction without a difference.  It's not the "huge" difference you claimed it was.  And for the record, here's the actual quote.  I stand by what I said the first time.

_PAUL: Well absolutely, we stand with Israel, but what I think we should do is announce to the world, and i think it is well-known, that any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States._ 

There in nothing in what Paul said to suggest that he thinks we should just _bluff_ that an attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the U.S.  Again, I like Rand.  I wish him the best.  But at some point the cognitive dissonance becomes too much.

----------


## K466

> Fair to say, though I think the better way to phrase it would be to say that Rand is "moving away from THEIR anti-war positions..."
> 
> As a life long conservative non-interventionist, I find little of the writing on anti-war.com to be in line with my way of thinking.


To be honest I only periodically visit their site, I like a good bit of what I read, but if I read more it's possible I would end up agreeing with you.

Sure, Rand is moving away from _their_ anti-war positions, but _also_ Ron Paul's and that of libertarian/non-interventionist philosophy. Him moving in the wrong direction should concern us all even if it's just part of some grand strategy or whatever....

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> To be honest I only periodically visit their site, I like a good bit of what I read, but if I read more it's possible I would end up agreeing with you.
> 
> Sure, Rand is moving away from _their_ anti-war positions, but _also_ Ron Paul's and that of libertarian/non-interventionist philosophy. Him moving in the wrong direction should concern us all even if it's just part of some grand strategy or whatever....


As someone who was a non-interventionist before it was cool to be one, there is nothing that Rand has said that concerns me.  Ron's positions, while good, were also utopian.

----------


## Todd

> AntiWar.com pander to the left a lot. They are the sort of people who would support Kucinich over Rand.


But nobody on the left reads it.  I know some of the most staunch anti-war persons in the Plowshare Peace and justice center here in VA.  For whatever reason, they will not entertain a Libertarian site.

----------


## robert68

> As I see it the fundamental difference between right non-interventionists and left non-interventionists (for lack of a better term) is their view of our country, military and the world around us.  
> 
> The right believes that we have made some FP errors (interventionism) and those errors have unintended consequences (i.e. stoking the fire), we are proud of our military men and women for the sacrifice they make and we believe that there are nations in this world who have a fundamentally flawed way of thinking and because of this are determined to overthrow what is "Western" - today that is radical Islam, in the past it was Communism. 
> 
> The left harbors a belief that America is evil, that our military is made up of largely hopped up baby killers and that everyone else in the world would be peaceful if not for us. 
> 
> So in that sense the right holds a more realistic view and the left holds a more Utopian view.  Of course, like any issue it isn't that black and white, but that is a generalization that I think fits well to describe how far apart the two sides are, even though they both hold to a non-interventionist view.





> As someone who was a non-interventionist before it was cool to be one, there is nothing that Rand has said that concerns me.  Ron's positions, while good, were also utopian.


Antiwar.com identifies itself as libertarian; libertarians aren’t leftists. They believe in individual rights, not states or empires rights.  Consequently attacks on military bases thousands of miles away from them, like for example the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, are not “attacks on them”, as statists typically see it; with then an “attack on them”  justifying the US firebombing and nuking 69 Japanese cities (67 and 2 respectively). 

Also, the “unrealistic” “left non-interventionists”, as you previously characterized them, recognize there will be unintended consequences that come from such military operations, and as it was, the communists took over China a few years after the war. The same took place because of the US military’s role in Europe in WWII, as it was followed for over 40 years by the Soviet Union occupying half of Europe and a “cold war” between the US and Soviets.

----------


## Occam's Banana

The ironic thing here is that all the criticisms of Rand as "moving away" from the "anti-war" position could just as easily be made by the "pro-war" crowd.

For example, I can very easily imagine some Establishment or neo-conservative commenters making the following remarks:




> They The Establishment and neo-conservatives are anti-war pro-war, no matter who is helping the pro-war anti-war cause, they will oppose that.
> 
> Rand Paul will attract more rebuke because he is moving away from the anti-war pro-war positions instead of toward them.
> 
> If you think this is a good strategy fine but don't complain when this draws anti-war pro-war criticism. You should welcome it, in fact... Unless you are [not one of us warmongers ...]





> Fair to say, though I think the better way to phrase it would be to say that Rand is "moving away from THEIR OUR anti-war pro-war positions..."





> Sure, Rand is moving away from _their_ our anti-war pro-war positions [...]. Him moving in the wrong direction should concern us all even if it's just part of some grand strategy or whatever....


This indicates that something important is missing in the analysis. When  two opposing sides can make essentially the same claims (by doing no more than "reversing the polarity" of a few terms, so to speak), then you know that some critical  factor has been omitted.

Judgements such as moving "towards" or "away from" can only be meaningful in terms of some baseline. In order for such terms to  have any meaning, we have to look at where things actually stand - that is the only thing "towards" or "from" which Rand (or anyone else) can sensibly be said to be "moving".

Both Rand's rhetoric and his actions represent a serious shift away from the rampantly interventionist policies advocated, enacted & pursued by the Establishment. To say that Rand is "moving away" from the non-interventionist ("anti-war") position (and therefore "towards" the all-interventionist or "pro-war" position) is simply absurd,

For strict non-interventionists such as myself (and other "anti-war" folk), the proper criticism of Rand is NOT that he is "moving away" from non-interventionism - it is that he is moving towards it, but not far enough.

Unlike a certain sitting President, Rand really does represent a genuine change from the _status quo_. That change is not as radical as some of us would like. It is perfectly legitimate for those of us who do not think Rand goes far enough to voice our concerns and criticisms (as distinct from offering no more than divisive snark or sarcastic contempt). But at the same time, it is ridiculous to characterize Rand as "moving towards" the interventionist end of the spectrum. This is something both his defenders and his critics in the Liberty Movement are (intentionally or unintentionally) prone to doing (see the posts quoted above).

IOW: It is NOT "fair to say" that "the better way to phrase it would be [that] Rand is 'moving away from [...] anti-war positions'". That is in fact a very poor way of phrasing it.

Doing so accomplishes nothing but to feed the fires of our internecine squabbles. (Unfortunately, that is what some on both sides seem hell-bent on doing - to the detriment of the objectives that we all share.)

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Antiwar.com identifies itself as libertarian; libertarians aren’t leftists. They believe in individual rights, not states or empires rights.  Consequently attacks on military bases thousands of miles away from them, like for example the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, are not “attacks on them”, as statists typically see it; with then an “attack on them”  justifying the US firebombing and nuking 69 Japanese cities (67 and 2 respectively). 
> 
> Also, the “unrealistic” “left non-interventionists”, as you previously characterized them, recognize there will be unintended consequences that come from such military operations, and as it was, the communists took over China a few years after the war. The same took place because of the US military’s role in Europe in WWII, as it was followed for over 40 years by the Soviet Union occupying half of Europe and a “cold war” between the US and Soviets


Actually, there are left libertarians and right libertarians.  "Libertarian" is just a catch all phrase for a number of different schools of thought.  

As I said, I am a non-interventionist and have been since the early 60's, but I have a much different worldview than what is expressed in the majority of writings I see on that site.

----------


## robert68

> Actually, there are left libertarians and right libertarians.  "Libertarian" is just a catch all phrase for a number of different schools of thought.  
> 
> As I said, I am a non-interventionist and have been since the early 60's, but I have a much different worldview than what is expressed in the majority of writings I see on that site.


A statist  "life long conservative" will have a "different worldview" than a libertarian. And "libertarian" is hardly “just a catch phrase” to those who typically identify themselves as such, of which you are not.

----------


## Brett85

> A "life long conservative" will have a different worldview than a libertarian.


About the only difference between paleo conservatives and the hardcore libertarians on foreign policy issues is rhetoric.  Both support closing down all of the foreign bases and bringing all of our troops home, opposing preemptive war, opposing foreign aid, etc.  There's just a difference in rhetoric in that some of the hardcore libertarians basically say that America is the cause of all of the problems in the world, that we intervene overseas in order to kill innocent people, that we just want to kill everyone and take over the entire world, etc.  I think most paleoconservatives believe that there are unintended consquences to interventionism, but that we don't intentionally kill innocent civilians, and that we aren't the cause of all of the evil in the world.  The only difference between the two groups is rhetoric, not the actual positions.  I think that's what CaptLouAlbano was referring to.

----------


## K466

> As someone who was a non-interventionist before it was cool to be one, there is nothing that Rand has said that concerns me.  Ron's positions, while good, were also utopian.


Wow. Rand argued for some mushy-moderate in between position. He did not argue for non-interventionism, he argued for whatever is in between it and the status quo.




> The ironic thing here is that all the criticisms of Rand as "moving away" from the "anti-war" position could just as easily be made by the "pro-war" crowd.
> 
> For example, I can very easily imagine some Establishment or neo-conservative commenters making the following remarks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see what you're saying, and here's the problem with it: Rand Paul was personally more of a non-interventionist in the past, and he is moving away from it publicly. He is going in the wrong direction, even though his influence may pull the GOP in the right direction ever so slightly.

If Rand was just an average senator, without any libertarian background, then I would be very encouraged by the positions he is taking. Instead, it's looking like he is trying the slippery slope method to get the ring of power, and I'm just not convinced there is a shortcut to liberty. Rand started out higher on the slope than any other senator, so its harder to see the problem at this stage, but if it continues I hope everyone sees it sooner rather than later.

----------


## Marky

> He didn't say "an attack on Israel is an attack on the US".  He said we should tell the rest of the world that.  He said we should make a threat (words).  It was still wrong and I don't like that he said it, but there is a * HUGE* difference.


That was an extremely irresponsible thing to say, and he should know how it will be taken worldwide. I dont like how so many on this forum are making excuses for this guy. Hes making it pretty clear where he stands, and its not looking good.

----------


## BlackJack

> That was an extremely irresponsible thing to say, and he should know how it will be taken worldwide. I don’t like how so many on this forum are making excuses for this guy. He’s making it pretty clear where he stands, and it’s not looking good.


Especially since he endorsed Romney and betrayed his father by compromising for greater influence.

----------


## fr33

> That was an extremely irresponsible thing to say, and he should know how it will be taken worldwide. I don’t like how so many on this forum are making excuses for this guy. He’s making it pretty clear where he stands, and it’s not looking good.


It really is horrible from a non-interventionist standpoint. The statement alone justifies the crimes against humanity currently being committed by the nation-state of Israel.

----------


## Brett85

> It really is horrible from a non-interventionist standpoint. *The statement alone justifies the crimes against humanity currently being committed by the nation-state of Israel.*


I think Rand will be better off without the extreme anti Israel people.

----------


## Brett85

> Especially since he endorsed Romney and betrayed his father by compromising for greater influence.


How did he betray his father when his father admitted a few days earlier that he didn't have any realistic chance to win the GOP nomination?

----------


## fr33

> I think Rand will be better off without the extreme anti Israel people.


I see. It's "extreme" to say, don't bulldoze down my house or kill the people that wont move out. It's "extreme" to say I have a right to my property and to my existence.

Bulldoze down my house and I'll gladly look for some rockets to fire. If that's extremist, I'm proud to be extreme.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I think Rand will be better off without the extreme anti Israel people.


And the Liberty Movement will be better off without the Israel-firsters.

----------


## AuH20

> About the only difference between paleo conservatives and the hardcore libertarians on foreign policy issues is rhetoric.  Both support closing down all of the foreign bases and bringing all of our troops home, opposing preemptive war, opposing foreign aid, etc.  *There's just a difference in rhetoric in that some of the hardcore libertarians basically say that America is the cause of all of the problems in the world, that we intervene overseas in order to kill innocent people, that we just want to kill everyone and take over the entire world, etc.*  I think most paleoconservatives believe that there are unintended consquences to interventionism, but that we don't intentionally kill innocent civilians, and that we aren't the cause of all of the evil in the world.  The only difference between the two groups is rhetoric, not the actual positions.  I think that's what CaptLouAlbano was referring to.


If the U.S. as we know it disappeared tommorrow, many of the same problems would continue. The hardcore libertarian who decries America at every possible opportunity is utterly clueless to this fact, so their criticisms often come off as illogical and without merit.

----------


## KingNothing

> And the Liberty Movement will be better off without the Israel-firsters.


I'd rather it just be filled with people who say whatever the Party and Media want us to say about Israel, while at the same time, maintaining peaceful relations without entangling alliances with other nations.  I see no reason to be honest with neocons or Israel-firsters -- if they expect us to say we'll always wage Israel's wars and finance their government, we should just say it and slowly vote to extract ourselves from that mess.

----------


## KingNothing

> That was an extremely irresponsible thing to say, and he should know how it will be taken worldwide. I don’t like how so many on this forum are making excuses for this guy. He’s making it pretty clear where he stands, and it’s not looking good.



There's nothing wrong with being feared.  

Fear of total destruction can go a long way in keeping a potential enemy in check.  If Egypt knows that any attack on Israel will result in America bombing it back to the days of Pharaoh, it isn't going to attack Israel.  

Nixon's Madman Theory wasn't totally without merit -- there's a benefit to being viewed as a bit of a loose-cannon, so long as you're so much more powerful than everyone else that no pre-emptive attack against you is possible.

----------


## Brett85

> And the Liberty Movement will be better off without the Israel-firsters.


I would think there can be some kind of middle ground betweem being an "Israel firster" or an Israel hater like fr33.  The correct position on Israel is that they're a good friend to the United States and that we should try to maintain a good relationship with them, but we shouldn't interfere in their internal affairs or pay for their national defense.

----------


## speciallyblend

I don't care for either one.

----------


## KingNothing

> Yes, and because of that, they have become my enemy.
> 
> I'm really sick of this crap of the so-called liberty movement shooting their own guys and I have decided that those engaged in doing that shooting are wolves in sheep's clothing.



They certainly are NOT the enemy, but I do agree that the in-fighting is infuriating.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I would think there can be some kind of middle ground betweem being an "Israel firster" or an Israel hater like fr33.  The correct position on Israel is that they're a good friend to the United States and that we should try to maintain a good relationship with them, but we shouldn't interfere in their internal affairs or pay for their national defense.


I agree, that should be the correct (liberty) position for Israel and all of our allies.

----------


## KingNothing

> I would think there can be some kind of middle ground betweem being an "Israel firster" or an Israel hater like fr33.  The correct position on Israel is that they're a good friend to the United States and that we should try to maintain a good relationship with them, but we shouldn't interfere in their internal affairs or pay for their national defense.



BUT THEY ATTACKED ARE BOATS AND SPY ON US AND PLUS JOOOOOOS! KAZARS!  ZIONISTS!

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'd rather it just be filled with people who say whatever the Party and Media want us to say about Israel, while at the same time, maintaining peaceful relations without entangling alliances with other nations.  I see no reason to be honest with neocons or Israel-firsters -- if they expect us to say we'll always wage Israel's wars and finance their government, we should just say it and slowly vote to extract ourselves from that mess.


The problem with that approach is that neocons are not the only ones who hear it.   You may get neocons on board with your candidate, but you'll turn off everyone else.

----------


## KingNothing

> The problem with that approach is that neocons are not the only ones who hear it.   You may get neocons on board with your candidate, but you'll turn off everyone else.


"Everyone else" wants to be friends with Israel and dislikes Muslims.

----------


## BlackJack

> How did he betray his father when his father admitted a few days earlier that he didn't have any realistic chance to win the GOP nomination?


Of course he admitted it. He said that plenty of times. He went on the GOP platform to teach the young ones. No matter how you slice it, Rand is a compromiser.

----------


## jmdrake

> It really is horrible from a non-interventionist standpoint. The statement alone justifies the crimes against humanity currently being committed by the nation-state of Israel.





> I think Rand will be better off without the extreme anti Israel people.

----------


## jmdrake

> They certainly are NOT the enemy, but I do agree that the in-fighting is infuriating.


Being honest about what's going on in Gaza is not the same as treating Israel as an enemy.  Really, this "If you criticize Israel you hate Israel" crap has to freaking stop!  I can talk about how it's wrong for Obama to kill kids in drone strikes and I'm not hating America, but if I dare criticizing Israel for doing the same thing I'm hating Israel?  Really?  That's garbage man!  Pure garbage!

----------


## jmdrake

> "Everyone else" wants to be friends with Israel and dislikes Muslims.


"Everyone else" loves interventionist foreign policy and is addicted to their version of big government.

----------


## jmdrake

> I would think there can be some kind of middle ground betweem being an "Israel firster" or an Israel hater like fr33.  The correct position on Israel is that they're a good friend to the United States and that we should try to maintain a good relationship with them, but we shouldn't interfere in their internal affairs or pay for their national defense.


Not interfering in internal affairs != being a coward and not being able to exercise first amendment rights to talk about what's going on.  I don't believe I should interfere in the internal affairs of North Korea.  That doesn't mean I can't be honest about what's happening there.

----------


## jbauer

> Yep, they actually help. And having the purist/anarchist crowd not supporting Sen. Paul is only helpful in an election...elections that they don't believe in voting in...


Really?  People not supporting you is helpful in an election?  At last count I thought votes were votes were votes.....(unless of course your in a real blue or red state)

----------


## Brett85

> Not interfering in internal affairs != being a coward and not being able to exercise first amendment rights to talk about what's going on.  I don't believe I should interfere in the internal affairs of North Korea.  That doesn't mean I can't be honest about what's happening there.


I don't believe that anyone who ever criticizes Israel is an "Israel hater," but when 100% of the criticism is criticism of Israel with absolutely no critcism of the Palestinians, it's hard for me to see how that isn't an anti Israel position.  The truth is that Israel and the Palestinians have been battling over that ground for centuries, and both groups are probably at fault for the lack of peace in the region.  Israel isn't blameless, but the Palestinians certainly aren't blameless either.  A lot of the people who post here like to make it sound like the Palestinians are just a group of completely innocent people who had their land stolen by a bunch of evil people.  It certainly is nowhere near that simple.

----------


## itshappening

> Really?  People not supporting you is helpful in an election?  At last count I thought votes were votes were votes.....(unless of course your in a real blue or red state)


In order to win an election you need the support of those that actually go out and vote.  in the GOP they tend to be older and supportive of israel.  Anarchists who are criticizing Rand are not a constituency he needs to worry about

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't believe that anyone who ever criticizes Israel is an "Israel hater," but when 100% of the criticism is criticism of Israel with absolutely no critcism of the Palestinians, it's hard for me to see how that isn't an anti Israel position.  The truth is that Israel and the Palestinians have been battling over that ground for centuries, and both groups are probably at fault for the lack of peace in the region.  Israel isn't blameless, but the Palestinians certainly aren't blameless either.  A lot of the people who post here like to make it sound like the Palestinians are just a group of completely innocent people who had their land stolen by a bunch of evil people.  It certainly is nowhere near that simple.


Ah.  So when I criticize Obama for killing American citizens with drone strikes I have to be careful and always say that said American might have actually been a terrorist or else I'm a racist.  Got ya.    Sorry, but everytime I hear someone use the "Sure you can criticize Israel, but make sure you're 'balanced'" I know there's something fishy.  I know this, because I never hear such calls for "balance" in any other context.

----------


## jmdrake

> In order to win an election you need the support of those that actually go out and vote.  in the GOP they tend to be older and supportive of israel.  Anarchists who are criticizing Rand are not a constituency he needs to worry about


So Rand supporters should quit worrying about it and threads like this are stupid.

----------


## AuH20

> I don't believe that anyone who ever criticizes Israel is an "Israel hater," but when 100% of the criticism is criticism of Israel with absolutely no critcism of the Palestinians, it's hard for me to see how that isn't an anti Israel position.  The truth is that Israel and the Palestinians have been battling over that ground for centuries, and both groups are probably at fault for the lack of peace in the region.  Israel isn't blameless, but the Palestinians certainly aren't blameless either.  A lot of the people who post here like to make it sound like the Palestinians are just a group of completely innocent people who had their land stolen by a bunch of evil people.  It certainly is nowhere near that simple.


+1
Palestine is among the world’s largest per capita recipients of international foreign aid.  But let's blame their entire plight as well as the reoccuring phenomenon of starving children on the Jews. ROFL The widespread corruption at the top of the Palestinian food-chain is well-documented.   The PLO and Hamas are more or less crime families, not too dissimilar from their Israeli adversaries.

----------


## Brett85

> Really?  People not supporting you is helpful in an election?  At last count I thought votes were votes were votes.....(unless of course your in a real blue or red state)


A lot of Ron's supporters in 2008 and 2012 were people who didn't even believe in voting.  I went to a campaign rally for Ron one day before the Kansas Caucus in Wichita, and the number of people who attended that event were actually greater than the number of votes Ron received the following day in the caucus.  A lot of the people who attended the rally simply didn't believe in voting.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> That was an extremely irresponsible thing to say, and he should know how it will be taken worldwide. I don’t like how so many on this forum are making excuses for this guy. He’s making it pretty clear where he stands, and it’s not looking good.


I said I disagree with it.  Quit acting like I'm being an apologist.  You and jmdrake need to retract and apologize.

What the Rand haters don't seem to understand is that most of us Rand supporters don't believe this is his genuine sentiment.  On top of that, the good heavily outweighs the bad.  Pretty clear where he stands?  90% of the people on this website tend to think he stands for more liberty and is our best shot at attaining it at the Presidential level.  Poll after poll.  It's the great majority.  The detractors are a very loud minority.

----------


## KingNothing

> "Everyone else" loves interventionist foreign policy and is addicted to their version of big government.


Yes, but we can frame those arguments in a way that is acceptable to "everyone else."  All I'm suggesting is that we, or Liberty politicians, simply don't talk about Israel for the time being, and then act according to our principles once we gain power.  It isn't a winning issue now.  Why talk about it when we could just say nothing and avoid political harm?

----------


## Brett85

> Ah.  So when I criticize Obama for killing American citizens with drone strikes I have to be careful and always say that said American might have actually been a terrorist or else I'm a racist.  Got ya.    Sorry, but everytime I hear someone use the "Sure you can criticize Israel, but make sure you're 'balanced'" I know there's something fishy.  I know this, because I never hear such calls for "balance" in any other context.


I never said that you were a racist, but when you and others constantly criticize Israel and never criticize any other country, you certainly have an obsession with the nation of Israel.

----------


## jmdrake

> I said I disagree with it.  Quit acting like I'm being an apologist.  You and jmdrake need to retract and apologize.


I ain't retracting or apologizing jack!  You're the one that tried to pretend there was some *HUGE* difference between what Rand actually said and what I said he said.  There wasn't.  I'm not a "Rand hater".  If anyone needs to do any retracting or apologizing it's you.

----------


## jmdrake

> I never said that you were a racist


I didn't say you were.  I was arguing from analogy.  If it's correct for you to criticize people who criticize Israel because they don't "balance" their criticism, then you are a racist when you criticize Obama and you don't "balance" your criticism.




> but when you and others constantly criticize Israel and never criticize any other country, you certainly have an obsession with the nation of Israel.


You are a liar.  I do not constantly criticize Israel.  In fact I rarely do.  I *far more often criticize the U.S. and for reasons that have nothing to do with Israel!*  Go to hell.  I mean that.  I'm am sick and tired of people like you who have this double standard and are hyper sensitive about criticism of Israel and then lie and pretend it's the others that are the ones with the double standard.  I criticize North Korea.  I criticize China.  I criticize Pakistan.  And in this thread I haven't even really been critical of Israel.  I've been critical of *YOU AND YOUR STINKING HYPOCRISY!*  Look at the video I posted of Ron Paul calling Gaza a concentration camp!  I've never criticized Israel to that extent.  Oh, but you can attack me and not Ron.  Why?  Because you are a hypocrite.  You like Ron Paul but you hate him at the same time.  So you transfer your hate to me when I'm just pointing out your inconsistency.

Edit: Again, watch the video this time.




Sorry, but you're sounding more and more like Ben Stein.

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/1...on-paul-moment

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Oh, so we should just lie to the rest of the world and say an attack on Israel is the same as an attack on the U.S.? Come on dude. Cut the bull$#@!. I love Rand and all, but cut the bull$#@!. There's no way any of us would be defending a statement like that if it wasn't Rand.
> 
> I ain't retracting or apologizing jack!  You're the one that tried to pretend there was some *HUGE* difference between what Rand actually said and what I said he said.  There wasn't.  I'm not a "Rand hater".  If anyone needs to do any retracting or apologizing it's you.


You said I was defending Rand and clearly implied I was defending the statement.  I said I disagreed with the statement which you quoted me as saying before you accused me, falsely, of saying we should lie to the world and say an attack on Israel was an attack on the US.

I accept your apology.

----------


## jmdrake

> You said I was defending Rand and clearly implied I was defending the statement.  I said I disagreed with the statement which you quoted me as saying before you accused me, falsely, of saying we should lie to the world and say an attack on Israel was an attack on the US.
> 
> I accept your apology.


 I'm not apologizing.  I accept your apology for lying when you said there was a *HUGE* difference between what I said Rand said and what he actually said.  You and I both know there was no actual difference just like you and I both know the statement was indefensible.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I'm not apologizing.  I accept your apology for lying when you said there was a *HUGE* difference between what I said Rand said and what he actually said.  You and I both know there was no actual difference just like you and I both know the statement was indefensible.


Where did I defend the statement?  Huge is a subjective word.  I think there is a HUGE difference between making a threat and carrying out a threat.  

Relax, buddy, I already accepted your apology.

----------


## jmdrake

> Where did I defend the statement?  Huge is a subjective word.  I think there is a HUGE difference between making a threat and carrying out a threat.  
> 
> Relax, buddy, I already accepted your apology.


Where did I say you defended the statement?  And where did I say Rand had carried out any threat?  If you agree, as you apparently do, that it was a threat, then you agree with my original position and there is really no "huge" difference to talk about.  I'm glad I'm able to clear up your confusion.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Oh, so we should just lie to the rest of the world and say an attack on Israel is the same as an attack on the U.S.?  Come on dude.  Cut the bull$#@!.  I love Rand and all, but cut the bull$#@!.  There's no way any of us would be defending a statement like that if it wasn't Rand.  I'm hopeful that Rand will continue doing the right thing because he doesn't consistently say it.


Right here.

----------


## Brett85

> I didn't say you were.  I was arguing from analogy.  If it's correct for you to criticize people who criticize Israel because they don't "balance" their criticism, then you are a racist when you criticize Obama and you don't "balance" your criticism.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  I do not constantly criticize Israel.  In fact I rarely do.  I *far more often criticize the U.S. and for reasons that have nothing to do with Israel!*  Go to hell.  I mean that.  I'm am sick and tired of people like you who have this double standard and are hyper sensitive about criticism of Israel and then lie and pretend it's the others that are the ones with the double standard.  I criticize North Korea.  I criticize China.  I criticize Pakistan.  And in this thread I haven't even really been critical of Israel.  I've been critical of *YOU AND YOUR STINKING HYPOCRISY!*  Look at the video I posted of Ron Paul calling Gaza a concentration camp!  I've never criticized Israel to that extent.  Oh, but you can attack me and not Ron.  Why?  Because you are a hypocrite.  You like Ron Paul but you hate him at the same time.  So you transfer your hate to me when I'm just pointing out your inconsistency.
> 
> Edit: Again, watch the video this time.
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, maybe I shouldn't have said that *you* constantly criticize Israel without ever criticizing any other country, but many people who post here do criticize Israel without ever criticizing any other country.  But, nevertheless there was absolutely no need for that kind of a personal attack.  You should be banned for making that kind of a statement about me or anyone else here.  I wouldn't wish for my worst enemy to go to hell.

----------


## jmdrake

> Right here.


I'm talking about the last post of yours I was responding to.  That said, there is more than one way to "defend" a statement.  One way is to try to obfuscate what is being said, while at the same time saying "I don't agree with it."  Case in point people saying "I don't agree with Ron Paul when he said what he said about Chris Kyle, but he really didn't say X.  What he really said was Y."  It's still a defense in that it's trying to make the statement less of what it actually was.  (And I'm just using that as a recent example.)  The bottom line in this situation is that what I said Rand said is what Rand said.  There was no "huge difference" that you claimed there was.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ok, maybe I shouldn't have said that *you* constantly criticize Israel without ever criticizing any other country, but many people who post here do criticize Israel without ever criticizing any other country.  But, nevertheless there was absolutely no need for that kind of a personal attack.  You should be banned for making that kind of a statement about me or anyone else here.  I wouldn't wish for my worst enemy to go to hell.


You should be banned for lying.  And I take the "You're hating on Israel" as a personal attack.  I wouldn't wish that for my worst enemy.

Edit: And a neg rep back at you.  There's nothing more cowardly than someone that flame baits as you did in this thread and then complains about the flames.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> I'm talking about the last post of yours I was responding to.  That said, there is more than one way to "defend" a statement.  One way is to try to obfuscate what is being said, while at the same time saying "I don't agree with it."  Case in point people saying "I don't agree with Ron Paul when he said what he said about Chris Kyle, but he really didn't say X.  What he really said was Y."  It's still a defense in that it's trying to make the statement less of what it actually was.  (And I'm just using that as a recent example.)  The bottom line in this situation is that what I said Rand said is what Rand said.  There was no "huge difference" that you claimed there was.


So we agree that what Rand said was wrong.  Huge is subjective.  All you can argue is that you don't think it's a huge difference.  I see a huge difference between telling my friend, "We should tell that $#@! we are going to kill him if he ever trespasses again" and telling that $#@!, "We are going to kill you if you ever trespass again".  I'm not saying it's as big as the difference between making the threat and following through on the threat, but I maintain that it's a pretty massive difference.

----------


## jmdrake

> So we agree that what Rand said was wrong.  Huge is subjective.  All you can argue is that you don't think it's a huge difference.  I see a huge difference between telling my friend, "We should tell that $#@! we are going to kill him if he ever trespasses again" and telling that $#@!, "We are going to kill you if you ever trespass again".  I'm not saying it's as big as the difference between making the threat and following through on the threat, but I maintain that it's a pretty massive difference.


Okay.  I agree to disagree as to whether that is actually a difference.  Tell you what.  If Rand runs for president in 2016 and is asked in the debate "Senator Paul, are you prepared to say unequivocally that an attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S.?" what do you expect him to say?  Because the way he's painted himself into a corner on the issue, I don't think he can say anything other than "Yes".  Does that mean he'll actually do the wrong thing if elected president?  I hope not.

----------


## Brett85

> You should be banned for lying.  And I take the "You're hating on Israel" as a personal attack.  I wouldn't wish that for my worst enemy.


I never said that you hated Israel, so you're just lying once again along with giving out vicious personal attacks for no reason.  I said that fr33 hated Israel because of a statement he made.  I never made any statement like that about you.

----------


## whoisjohngalt

> Okay.  I agree to disagree as to whether that is actually a difference.  Tell you what.  If Rand runs for president in 2016 and is asked in the debate "Senator Paul, are you prepared to say unequivocally that an attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S.?" what do you expect him to say?  Because the way he's painted himself into a corner on the issue, I don't think he can say anything other than "Yes".  Does that mean he'll actually do the wrong thing if elected president?  I hope not.


What I want him to say or expect him to say?  I expect him to say something like this, "I don't deal in hypothetical.   Regarding a specific attack, it's impossible to know what reaction would be warranted without specific details on what had occurred.  I think it's important that we let the rest of the world and Israel know that they are one of our greatest allies and we will stand with them."

I would want him to say, "Unequivocally, no.  I don't do or say anything unequivocally.  I examine facts and make a decision.  I don't deal in hypothetical."

----------

