# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Hotair: Rand Paul differentiates foreign policy from his fathers brand

## Agorism

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/2...says-rand-paul




> Allahpundit wrote Wednesday that Rand Paul is working hard to differentiate from his fathers brand, but  wow. Breitbarts Ben Shapiro asked Paul the Younger about aid to Israel, which Paul says hed like to eliminate only after eliminating all foreign aid  and that the effort should start with nations where the people burn the American flag, and perhaps Israel last. If President, Paul pledges to send a message that American troops will intervene on Israels behalf if attacked, regardless of aid decisions, using the NATO formulation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul took what very well could be considered his most pro-Israel stance yet, saying in an interview that an attack on Israel should be treated as an attack on the United States.
> 
> Asked whether the United States would stand with Israel and provide it foreign aid if the Jewish state were attacked by its enemies, Paul went a step further.
> ...

----------


## LibertyEagle

It's hotair.  They WANT to drive a wedge.  And you're helping.

----------


## pcosmar

> It's hotair.  They WANT to drive a wedge.  And you're helping.


Nope,, I detest HotAir.

and I am not the only one here that already had that reaction based on nothing but Rand's own words.

----------


## Agorism

> It's hotair.  They WANT to drive a wedge.  And you're helping.


No they were just explaining Rand's agenda.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

Ugh. This is the last thing I wanted to see from our '16 hope.

Treating Israel as a surrogate state of the USA only serves to further compound our regional problems. Stupid.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Nope,, I detest HotAir.
> 
> and I am not the only one here that already had that reaction based on nothing but Rand's own words.


So?  To me that means that those people are not listening to what Rand has said and done any better than you have.

----------


## fisharmor

> and I am not the only one here that already had that reaction based on nothing but Rand's own words.


No, you're not.
The wedge has been getting driven for years now.  Things calm down for a month or two, and then BAM someone swings the sledge and that wedge gets driven a little bit deeper.

And every time I look up to see who's swinging I find out, every single time, that it's RAND $#@!ING PAUL.

----------


## Agorism

> Ugh. This is the last thing I wanted to see from our '16 hope.
> 
> Treating Israel as a surrogate state of the USA only serves to further compound our regional problems. Stupid.



Getting into entangling alliances are the kind of thing that has promoted terrorist attacks on the USA in the past.

----------


## itshappening

Look at the comments, this is exactly the kind of people Rand is aiming them at and it's working.  

They're impressed... 

This is all part of Rand's strategy, it's a fine line but many of us support him in this venture and I think he knows that.

----------


## Brett85

I've been as big of a Rand supporter as anyone, and he hasn't lost my support.  But, I don't think he's doing a very good job of reaching out to the liberty movement at the moment.  I think he's so concerned about winning over rank and file Republicans and pro Israel people that he's forgetting that his father's supporters aren't going to just automatically support him no matter what.  He's going to run the risk of alienating a large chunk of Ron's supporters and make it hard for himself to raise money when/if he runs in 2016.

----------


## itshappening

> I've been as big of a Rand supporter as anyone, and he hasn't lost my support.  But, I don't think he's doing a very good job of reaching out to the liberty movement at the moment.  I think he's so concerned about winning over rank and file Republicans and pro Israel people that he's forgetting that his father's supporters aren't going to just automatically support him no matter what.  He's going to run the risk of alienating a large chunk of Ron's supporters and make it hard for himself to raise money when/if he runs in 2016.


I dont think he will as he does enough to keep his 'base' support while reaching out. 

To those who pay attention anyway.  

If you look at his stands on civil liberties and there will be plenty more. 

I think he can pull it off and bring in a lot of new people. 

Look at his facebook, 500k followers.  That will be at Ron's 1 million+ by the time he announces.

Can you imagine the moneybombs and the funds he could raise with all these new fans and hopefully most of those who have followed him for years (and trust him)

----------


## Brett85

> If you look at his stands on civil liberties and there will be plenty more.


Yeah, but unfortunately I care more about foreign policy issues than I do about civil liberties.  The reason why I supported Ron back in 2007 and 2008 was because of his opposition to the Iraq War.  Ron's foreign policy views were the reason why many conservatives hated him, but it was the primary reason why I supported him over the other candidates running for President.  I don't want Rand to move too far away from Ron's foreign policy views.

----------


## twomp

Rand Paul is NOT Ron Paul and we shouldn't think the two are the same. There are those who care more about civil liberties then Foreign Policy and those people will continue to support Rand Paul but I think it would be foolish to think that he has all of our support unconditionally. He is basically trading in those who admire Ron Paul's foreign policy to pick up the votes of the neo-cons. 

Some people will like it and view this as another way to "win over the Republicans." Some people will hate it and view this as another Rand Paul slide towards neo-conservatism. I personally think that if Rand Paul is talking like this now, I shutter at how much more of a neo-con he will become when 2016 rolls around.

----------


## itshappening

> Yeah, but unfortunately I care more about foreign policy issues than I do about civil liberties.  The reason why I supported Ron back in 2007 and 2008 was because of his opposition to the Iraq War.  Ron's foreign policy views were the reason why many conservatives hated him, but it was the primary reason why I supported him over the other candidates running for President.  I don't want Rand to move too far away from Ron's foreign policy views.


Rand on the last foreign adventure:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLY19PnY2m8

----------


## twomp

> Rand on the last foreign adventure:


That was over 1 year ago. Rand Paul has now visited Israel and "seen the light."

----------


## Dystopian

Its become laughable at this point.

----------


## Agorism

> I dont think he will as he does enough to keep his 'base' support while reaching out. 
> 
> To those who pay attention anyway.  
> 
> If you look at his stands on civil liberties and there will be plenty more. 
> 
> I think he can pull it off and bring in a lot of new people. 
> 
> Look at his facebook, 500k followers.  That will be at Ron's 1 million+ by the time he announces.
> ...



Ya he might be able to that...in the primary.

And he shouldn't complain once there are better independent candidates running in the general election who cost him the election because he squandered his father's libertarian base (which is has already done btw.) Mission accomplished Rand.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand on the last foreign adventure:


Yeah, he's still probably the best we have in the Senate on foreign policy issues, but that's not saying much.  I would simply like for him to be more specific.  He's basically said that he would close down *some* foreign military bases as President.  Well, that could mean that he would close down 2 foreign military bases, or he could close down 800 and leave 100.  What does he think our presence in the world should actually be?  I'd like him to explain that.  And no, I don't believe he needs to keep his views on that a secret in order to "slide under the radar."

----------


## klamath

It does give me pause and I hope Rand doesn't expand his base appeal right into the typical republican stance on the middle east. It will be sad because that will be two Pauls that have let me down. I wouldn't vote for Ron anymore after watching his last two campaigns.

----------


## itshappening

> Ya he might be able to that...in the primary.
> 
> And he shouldn't complain once there are better independent candidates running in the general election who cost him the election because he squandered his father's libertarian base (which is has already done btw.) Mission accomplished Rand.


I don't think he has and any libertarian who votes LP in the general because they don't like Rand trying to broaden their appeal are idiots on a par with the LP voters in Justin Amash's district.

----------


## twomp

Anyone else get the feeling the Ron Paul rEVOLution is about to get co-opted? They did it to the Goldwater movement. They did it to the evangelicals. They did it to the Tea-Party. The formula is always the same. They let you think you can "take over" the GOP. Then next thing you know, it's more of the same. It's been going on for quite some time now....

----------


## sailingaway

> Anyone else get the feeling the Ron Paul rEVOLution is about to get co-opted? They did it to the Goldwater movement. They did it to the evangelicals. They did it to the Tea-Party. The formula is always the same. They let you think you can "take over" the GOP. Then next thing you know, it's more of the same. It's been going on for quite some time now....




Isn't that up to us each as individuals?

I don't feel coopted.

----------


## twomp

> I don't think he has and any libertarian who votes LP in the general because they don't like Rand trying to broaden their appeal are idiots on a par with the LP voters in Justin Amash's district.


Sorry broadening your appeal does not = becoming a neo-con. There's a line. If a Rand Paul presidency means he backs Israel no matter how they treat their neighbors then nothing changes. There will be no difference between Bush/Obama. This love affair with Israel has caused us loss of money and loss of life.

----------


## itshappening

> Yeah, he's still probably the best we have in the Senate on foreign policy issues, but that's not saying much.  I would simply like for him to be more specific.  He's basically said that he would close down *some* foreign military bases as President.  Well, that could mean that he would close down 2 foreign military bases, or he could close down 800 and leave 100.  What does he think our presence in the world should actually be?  I'd like him to explain that.  And no, I don't believe he needs to keep his views on that a secret in order to "slide under the radar."



I dont think he needs to come out and be specific about that, the point of the media operation is to come out and appeal to broader base of typical GOP voters. 

He should not do anything to wreck that by scaring them about how many bases he's going to close if he's ever Commander in Chief, my guess is he would close a lot but we'd never know until he's Commander in Chief and orders the necessary Pentagon review with the view to significant cuts.  I would hope he would end all the subsidies to Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon too but we never know, do we ? we just have to trust his broader limited govt philosophy because he's never going to come out and say it 

Ron would but he couldn't win a GOP primary

----------


## itshappening

> Sorry broadening your appeal does not = becoming a neo-con. There's a line. If a Rand Paul presidency means he backs Israel no matter how they treat their neighbors then nothing changes. There will be no difference between Bush/Obama. This love affair with Israel has caused us loss of money and loss of life.


Rand is not a neocon though, expressing fidelity to Israel does not make you a neocon.  Demanding pre-emptive war with Iran and a number of other countries does.   There's a difference.

----------


## twomp

> Isn't that up to us each as individuals?
> 
> I don't feel coopted.


It depends now doesn't it. If you decide to vote Rand Paul for president in 2016 because he's "the best we have" or he's "the lesser of two evils." Doesn't that mean the establishment has successfully achieved it's goal? If a President Rand Paul allows Israel to continue to bully it's neighbors with USA protection. Then the hatred towards our country and the necessary "War on Terror" remains does it not?

----------


## twomp

> Rand is not a neocon though, expressing fidelity to Israel does not make you a neocon.  Demanding pre-emptive war with Iran and umpteen other countries does.   There's a difference.


What difference is it if Israel demands per-emptive war and President Rand Paul declares anyone who attacks back will have to face the might of the USA military?

----------


## pcosmar

> So?  To me that means that those people are not listening to what Rand has said and done any better than you have.


He said. 
"an attack on Israel is an attack of the US"

$#@! that, and him.

That is Traitorous.
Israel is instigating $#@! all on their own and should have been cut off long ago.

----------


## Brett85

> I dont think he needs to come out and be specific about that, the point of the media operation is to come out and appeal to broader base of typical GOP voters. 
> 
> He should not do anything to wreck that by scaring them about how many bases he's going to close if he's ever Commander in Chief, my guess is he would close a lot but we'd never know until he's Commander in Chief and orders the necessary Pentagon review with the view to significant cuts.  I would hope he would end all the subsidies to Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon too but we never know, do we ? we just have to trust his broader limited govt philosophy because he's never going to come out and say it 
> 
> Ron would but he couldn't win a GOP primary


Well, then he shouldn't necessarily expect to receive a lot of support and money from Ron Paul supporters if he won't advocate anything close to the foreign policy that Ron Paul supports.

----------


## dinosaur

> It does give me pause and I hope Rand doesn't expand his base appeal right into the typical republican stance on the middle east. It will be sad because that will be two Pauls that have let me down. I wouldn't vote for Ron anymore after watching his last two campaigns.


There is no way he is going to morph into an interventionist.  If he does, I will no longer support him.  But so far, all I've seen from Rand, is Rand using their own rhetoric and re-defining it.  It is actually very clever of him to use their own rhetoric against them...and to give it an honest meaning.  For example, supporting Israel now means that we support ther right to be independent of the US and to defend themselves. It also now means that we shouldn't undermine their efforts to protect themselves by occupying, arming, and training their enemies in the middle east. When the neocons say that they support Israel, they are really saying that they support the endless stupid wars in the middle east that benefit neither Amercia, nor Great Britain, nor Israel...but that is not Rand's definition of supporting Israel.  When neocons say that we must defend Israel, what they really mean is that we should attack Iran to finish the bankster wars...not Rand's definition either.

----------


## Brett85

And Ron couldn't win a GOP primary because he took things to an extreme, opposing the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden and so forth.  Closing down foreign military bases is not extreme.  A large number of conservatives agree with that now.  I don't see any reason why Rand can't advocate bringing our troops home from countries like Germany and Japan.  I don't think the average American has any clue why we still have troops in those countries 70 years after the end of WWII.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yeah, he's still probably the best we have in the Senate on foreign policy issues, but that's not saying much.  I would simply like for him to be more specific.  He's basically said that he would close down *some* foreign military bases as President.  Well, that could mean that he would close down 2 foreign military bases, or he could close down 800 and leave 100.  What does he think our presence in the world should actually be?  I'd like him to explain that.  And no, I don't believe he needs to keep his views on that a secret in order to "slide under the radar."


Before he could do that, he would have to make sure he fully explained how our nation would still be defended without some of the bases we have now.  Back when, we needed some of those for refueling purposes, to name one thing.  Ron didn't do this and it hurt him badly.  Things like this and tossing out quips like getting rid of the CIA, without further explanation came back to bite Ron in the ass.  

I hope to God that Rand does not repeat Ron's mistakes, or his chances of turning any of the crap back via government will be sunk.

----------


## sailingaway

> It depends now doesn't it. If you decide to vote Rand Paul for president in 2016 because he's "the best we have" or he's "the lesser of two evils." Doesn't that mean the establishment has successfully achieved it's goal? If a President Rand Paul allows Israel to continue to bully it's neighbors with USA protection. Then the hatred towards our country and the necessary "War on Terror" remains does it not?


The R3VOLution ongoing doesn't require absolute victory in 2016, and if none of the candidates would offer that, it won't be possible.  WHat it requires, imho, is bringing more and more people into the R3VOLution proper that ultimately victory of our principles is inevitable.  My vote in 2016, which will be as good as I can make it, according to my lights, at that time, doesn't say whether the Ron Paul R3VOLution has been coopted. It is only if I am deluded into believing less than good is good enough that I stop fighting for more, that it has been coopted.

----------


## itshappening

> What difference is it if Israel demands per-emptive war and President Rand Paul declares anyone who attacks back will have to face the might of the USA military?


You have no idea what he will do as president. 

Bush said he would run a humble foreign policy and not be a policeman of the world.  

Look how that turned out.

If Rand does that in reverse, then you'll be pleased.

----------


## klamath

> There is no way he is going to morph into an interventionist.  If he does, I will no longer support him.  But so far, all I've seen from Rand, is Rand using their own rhetoric and re-defining it.  It is actually very clever of him to use their own rhetoric against them...and to give it an honest meaning.  For example, supporting Israel now means that we support ther right to be independent of the US and to defend themselves. It also now means that we shouldn't undermine their efforts to protect themselves by occupying, arming, and training their enemies in the middle east. When the neocons say that they support Israel, they are really saying that they support the endless stupid wars in the middle east that benefit neither Amercia, nor Great Britain, nor Israel...but that is not Rand's definition of supporting Israel.  When neocons say that we must defend Israel, what they really mean is that we should attack Iran to finish the bankster wars...not Rand's definition either.


well I will be watching.

----------


## dinosaur

> The R3VOLution ongoing doesn't require absolute victory in 2016, and if none of the candidates would offer that, it won't be possible.  WHat it requires, imho, is bringing more and more people into the R3VOLution proper that ultimately victory of our principles is inevitable.  My vote in 2016, which will be as good as I can make it, according to my lights, at that time, doesn't say whether the Ron Paul R3VOLution has been coopted. It is only if I am deluded into believing less than good is good enough that I stop fighting for more, that it has been coopted.


Very true.

----------


## sailingaway

> You have no idea what he will do as president. 
> 
> Bush said he would run a humble foreign policy and not be a policeman of the world.  
> 
> Look how that turned out.
> 
> If Rand does that in reverse, then you'll be pleased.


I would seriously rather have someone I could trust to do what they said they would.

----------


## twomp

> You have no idea what he will do as president. 
> 
> Bush said he would run a humble foreign policy and not be a policeman of the world.  
> 
> Look how that turned out.
> 
> If Rand does that in reverse, then you'll be pleased.


Yes! I would be very pleased if he did that. And yes I don't have any idea what he would do but as of right now, I am not too confident based on what he's been saying.

----------


## itshappening

> Well, then he shouldn't necessarily expect to receive a lot of support and money from Ron Paul supporters if he won't advocate anything close to the foreign policy that Ron Paul supports.


He will receive a lot of money from former Ron Paul backers and a lot of money from the new fans too who by the way are more older and wealthier. 

He should do fine in terms of raising money. I certainly expect him to. I have no idea what he expects.  Ron never expected 6 million in one day but he got it. I expect Rand could do better.

----------


## Brett85

> Before he could do that, he would have to make sure he fully explained how our nation would still be defended without some of the bases we have now.  Back when, we needed some of those for refueling purposes, to name one thing.  Ron didn't do this and it hurt him badly.  Things like this and tossing out quips like getting rid of the CIA, without further explanation came back to bite Ron in the ass.  
> 
> I hope to God that Rand does not repeat Ron's mistakes, or his chances of turning any of the crap back via government will be sunk.


I agree.  He should outline a specific policy that shows that he supports a strong national defense.  We could close down foreign military bases overseas and build them along the Mexico border, for example.  But, no one is ever going to convince me that foreign military bases have anything to do with legitimate defense.

----------


## twomp

> The R3VOLution ongoing doesn't require absolute victory in 2016, and if none of the candidates would offer that, it won't be possible.  WHat it requires, imho, is bringing more and more people into the R3VOLution proper that ultimately victory of our principles is inevitable.  My vote in 2016, which will be as good as I can make it, according to my lights, at that time, doesn't say whether the Ron Paul R3VOLution has been coopted. It is only if I am deluded into believing less than good is good enough that I stop fighting for more, that it has been coopted.


okay, I guess I'm explaining it wrong. I am not saying YOU will be co-opted personally SA. I'm saying they would use our message to get votes and continue down the same path they are currently on. And when i say "they", I mean the establishment in general.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He said. 
> "an attack on Israel is an attack of the US"
> 
> $#@! that, and him.
> 
> That is Traitorous.
> Israel is instigating $#@! all on their own and should have been cut off long ago.


NO ONE IS GOING TO ATTACK IRAN!!  

And he has said numerous times that the goal is to end ALL FOREIGN AID.

You just want him to say it the way that you want it said.  That's all.

----------


## itshappening

> I would seriously rather have someone I could trust to do what they said they would.


politicians never do what they say. 

However I do have a belief Rand is incorruptible and has a consistent philosophy that he would apply if he ever was president some day.

----------


## klamath

> Before he could do that, he would have to make sure he fully explained how our nation would still be defended without some of the bases we have now.  Back when, we needed some of those for refueling purposes, to name one thing.  Ron didn't do this and it hurt him badly.  Things like this and tossing out quips like getting rid of the CIA, without further explanation came back to bite Ron in the ass.  
> 
> I hope to God that Rand does not repeat Ron's mistakes, or his chances of turning any of the crap back via government will be sunk.


So true. So sadly true. Ron sadly painted himself as very ignorant on national defense.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Damn, guys.  You expect Rand to have done every damn thing in the world.  Ron damn sure didn't.  Not in just a couple of years, he didn't, and those things he proposed, FAILED BIG TIME.

Give him a frickin' chance, will ya, before stabbing him in the back.

----------


## sailingaway

> okay, I guess I'm explaining it wrong. I am not saying YOU will be co-opted personally SA. I'm saying they would use our message to get votes and continue down the same path they are currently on. And when i say "they", I mean the establishment in general.


I am absolutely certain they will try to do that. They tried this last time. Gingrich against the FEd?  Perry?  Romney -sorta? Glen Beck with a 'Libertarian News Network'?

I think you can count on it.

Don't get attached to labels, would be my advice - to myself at minimum.

----------


## seyferjm

Kudos to AntiFederalist for commenting on Hot Air.

----------


## itshappening

> I agree.  He should outline a specific policy that shows that he supports a strong national defense.  We could close down foreign military bases overseas and build them along the Mexico border, for example.  But, no one is ever going to convince me that foreign military bases have anything to do with legitimate defense.


In any logical budget calculation those foreign bases would be closed down and I forsee them having to close sooner or later with or without Rand Paul as commander in chief.

Like Ron Paul says himself, empires always die because of financial problems associated with expansionary policies see British empire for the last example in history.

----------


## Brett85

> Kudos to AntiFederalist for commenting on Hot Air.


Ha.  Is that really the same Anti Federalist who posts here?

----------


## itshappening

I wish the AF / Ron Paul guy wouldn't argue with them and let them enjoy and celebrate their new found love for Rand Paul.

----------


## Agorism

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance17.html

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

----------


## itshappening

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance17.html
> 
> "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson


I think Rand would be a very peaceful president

----------


## klamath

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance17.html
> 
> "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson


 except for undeclared wars in libya.......

----------


## pcosmar

> NO ONE IS GOING TO ATTACK IRAN!!  
> 
> And he has said numerous times that the goal is to end ALL FOREIGN AID.
> 
> You just want him to say it the way that you want it said.  That's all.


I said nothing about Iran.

He said an *attack on Israel* is an attack on the US.

WRONG> An attack on Israel is an attack on Israel,, and is none of our business.

Israel WILL BE Attacked. They are insuring that.

The Bible  (many prophets) have said that. The Anti-Christ will rule from Jerusalem.
And Christians are putting him in power there by their ignorance. (they should be hindering/delaying it).
Following false teachers,, they are being misled and used.

Iran will likely be the the start of the cataclysm. But the entire region will be involved.

I can not support anyone that backs the Zionist agenda.

----------


## Agorism

> I think Rand would be a very peaceful president



Wonder what his Gitmo subjects will think about all that.

----------


## twomp

LOL its the entire Hot Air crowd vs. AF on there. Go AF! My money is on you!

----------


## Brett85

> Wonder what his Gitmo subjects will think about all that.


There's no war occurring at Gitmo, and Rand ultimately wants to close the prison down.

----------


## thequietkid10

> Ugh. This is the last thing I wanted to see from our '16 hope.
> 
> Treating Israel as a surrogate state of the USA only serves to further compound our regional problems. Stupid.


The problem is, is that Israel is our surrogate state.  And nobody, especially from the right, who doesn't acknowledge this, is going to get nominated.  At some point, a political movement needs people in office in order to be successful.  

I've been putting a lot of thought into foreign policy, and I've come to the conclusion that whoever is elected President, is not working in a vacuum here.

In order for a libertarian foreign policy in this country to be politically feasible, Iran must stop with the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) suggestions that Israel drop off the face of the Earth, or at the very least move to Europe.  That is not going to happen without an event that reminds people of 
A. World War III.
or
B. The Holocaust

Yes there are lots of factors which lead to Iran's current state which can be blamed on the US, but the fact remains, that Iran is state ruled by religious fundamentalism.

I guess in summary, IF (big if) Iran see's a Ron Paul style foreign policy as an open invitation to try and remove Israel, then that decision will relegate President Paul to a place in history alongside John Tyler, and it would be the end of the liberty movement as we know it.

----------


## itshappening

> I said nothing about Iran.
> 
> He said an *attack on Israel* is an attack on the US.
> 
> WRONG> An attack on Israel is an attack on Israel,, and is none of our business.
> 
> Israel WILL BE Attacked. They are insuring that.
> 
> The Bible  (many prophets) have said that. The Anti-Christ will rule from Jerusalem.
> ...


I dont think Israel are ensuring they will be attacked.  

Israel has a certain amount of self-interest in not being attacked, like seeing Jewish people killed and their economy wrecked.  

They might sound belligerent at times but I bet you they'd do everything to avoid confrontation.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Wonder what his Gitmo subjects will think about all that.


I dunno, why don't you check out HuffPo, or one of your other favorite lefty sites and see what they think.

----------


## Antischism

Ron Paul's foreign policy is the major reason why I got involved in the liberty movement. If Rand Paul is going to stray from that, I'll have a very difficult time supporting him.

----------


## sailingaway

> The problem is, is that Israel is our surrogate state.


I have a hard time getting beyond this in your post.

No it isn't. Israel is Israel.  We are us.

----------


## Brett85

I never expected Rand to say that he wouldn't support helping out Israel if they got attacked.  But, the way he said it was very surprising.  He usually expresses his views in a much more calculated and nuanced way.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I said nothing about Iran.


I meant Israel.

----------


## itshappening

> There's no war occurring at Gitmo, and Rand ultimately wants to close the prison down.


Congress won't let him close it down though as Obama is finding out. 

A lot of times if Rand were president he would be hampered by a bought off Congress sworn to stop him from shrinking government.

----------


## Agorism

edit



> For Immediate Release
> November 19, 2009
> 
> BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY – Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts.
> 
> "Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution," said Dr. Paul. "These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies."

----------


## twomp

> In order for a libertarian foreign policy in this country to be politically feasible, Iran must stop with the subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) suggestions that Israel drop off the face of the Earth, or at the very least move to Europe.


Iran has not said that. You are regurgitating the media spin. The effectively said they want a regime change. Remove the people in power not the Israelis themselves.

----------


## seyferjm

The biggest issue I have with his statement is that he basically is saying that we will do anything to defend Israel, even if they get attacked in a way that can be considered blowback for their own actions. If they do any provoking, they alone should deal with the consequences.

----------


## Brett85

Rand has said that he doesn't support closing down Gitmo and importing terrorists into the United States, but he does support trying the prisoners at Gitmo in military tribunals immediately and then closing down the prison as soon as those military tribunals have concluded.

----------


## twomp

> Rand has said that he doesn't support closing down Gitmo and importing terrorists into the United States, but he does support trying the prisoners at Gitmo in military tribunals immediately and then closing down the prison as soon as those military tribunals have concluded.


And what happens if these tribunals find them guilty? How do they get imprisoned without being imported into the United States AND closing down Gitmo?

----------


## Brett85

> The biggest issue I have with his statement is that he basically is saying that we will do anything to defend Israel, even if they get attacked in a way that can be considered blowback for their own actions. If they do any provoking, they alone should deal with the consequences.


That was exactly my problem with what he said as well.  I could possibly support helping out Israel if they were attacked in an unprovoked way and asked us for our help.  But, I don't believe that we should help out Israel if they bomb Iran, and then Iran bombs or invades Israel as a result of Israel's attack.

----------


## klamath

> Rand has said that he doesn't support closing down Gitmo and importing terrorists into the United States, but he does support trying the prisoners at Gitmo in military tribunals immediately and then closing down the prison as soon as those military tribunals have concluded.


And this I totally agree with rand and disagree with Ron.

----------


## Brett85

> And what happens if these tribunals find them guilty? How do they get imprisoned without being imported into the United States AND closing down Gitmo?


They could just receive the death penalty like Saddam Hussein did.  Then you wouldn't have to worry about holding them in any prison.

----------


## itshappening

> The biggest issue I have with his statement is that he basically is saying that we will do anything to defend Israel, even if they get attacked in a way that can be considered blowback for their own actions. If they do any provoking, they alone should deal with the consequences.


But what are the Israeli's doing? they're not like the US government carrying out foreign adventures, they have enough problems with the West bank and Gaza. 

The only way Israel gets attacked by another country is if some dictator comes to power and deliberately seeks a confrontation. 

Now if this happened on Rand's watch, would he go to congress and ask for authorization to help them? I think he's saying he will.  

I dont think this is selling out or anything, it's just a position he's adopted and the chances of it happening are probably less than 1%.

It would be like me saying if I were president and switzerland was under attack I'd want to help them.  I like the swiss people and the history and culture and think they should remain independent.

----------


## Agorism

> He said. 
> "an attack on Israel is an attack of the US"
> 
> $#@! that, and him.
> 
> That is Traitorous.
> Israel is instigating $#@! all on their own and should have been cut off long ago.



We're all Zionists now.

----------


## pcosmar

> They might sound belligerent at times but I bet you they'd do everything to avoid confrontation.


Bull$#@!.
USS Liberty
Lavon Affair
King David Hotel
They have been instigating trouble since the 1800s. including numerous Terrorist acts.
The friggin Nazis helped colonize the place . Zionism is National Socialism.

----------


## Brett85

> And this I totally agree with rand and disagree with Ron.


Me too, although I'm still closer to Ron overall on foreign policy issues than I am to Rand.

----------


## twomp

> But what are the Israeli's doing? they're not like the US government carrying out foreign adventures, they have enough problems with the West bank and Gaza. 
> 
> The only way Israel gets attacked by another country is if some dictator comes to power and deliberately seeks a confrontation. 
> 
> Now if this happened on Rand's watch, would he go to congress and ask for authorization to help them? I think he's saying he will.  
> 
> I dont think this is selling out or anything, it's just a position he's adopted and the chances of it happening are probably less than 1%.
> 
> It would be me like saying if I were president and switzerland was under attack I'd want to help them.  I like the swiss people and the history and culture and think they should remain independent.


They've already bombed Syria's nuclear facilities. They are considering doing the same to Iran's. You really don't think they'd do that?

----------


## twomp

> Congress won't let him close it down though as Obama is finding out. 
> 
> A lot of times if Rand were president he would be hampered by a bought off Congress sworn to stop him from shrinking government.


So what you're saying is Obama has the power to rain missiles on other countries without Congressional approval but not the ability to shut down a base on foreign soil? You ever consider Obama is LYING and doesn't want to shut down Gitmo?

----------


## itshappening

> That was exactly my problem with what he said as well.  I could possibly support helping out Israel if they were attacked in an unprovoked way and asked us for our help.  But, I don't believe that we should help out Israel if they bomb Iran, and then Iran bombs or invades Israel as a result of Israel's attack.


If you were president and Switzerland was invaded by a country with a dictator hell bent on stealing all its gold and enslaving its population and the president of Switzerland pleads with you to help by sending in troops from nearby bases in Germany, would you put the phone down on him and say 'sorry, I can't help your people despite us being friends for 230 years i'm a libertarian with an a non-intervenionist foreign policy' or would you go to congress and ask for authorization to send in those troops?

----------


## twomp

> If you were president and Switzerland was invaded by a country with a dictator hell bent on stealing all its gold and enslaving its population and the president of Switzerland pleads with you to help by sending in troops from nearby bases in Germany, would you put the phone down on him and say 'sorry, I can't help your people despite us being friends for 230 years i'm a libertarian with an a non-intervenionist foreign policy' or would you go to congress and ask for authorization to send in those troops?


I like how you changed the scenario from Israel (who is threatening other countries) to Switzerland (who isn't threatening anyone). Please continue to spin stuff.

----------


## itshappening

> I like how you changed the scenario from Israel (who is threatening other countries) to Switzerland (who isn't threatening anyone). Please continue to spin stuff.


There's a lot of threats and bluster in international politics. 

North Korea says they will annihilate the USA nearly every day and are currently testing nuclear weapons. 

Are you more worried about them or Israel attacking someone?

----------


## Brett85

> If you were president and Switzerland was invaded by a country with a dictator hell bent on stealing all its gold and enslaving its population and the president of Switzerland pleads with you to help by sending in troops from nearby bases in Germany, would you put the phone down on him and say 'sorry, I can't help your people despite us being friends for 230 years i'm a libertarian with an a non-intervenionist foreign policy' or would you go to congress and ask for authorization to send in those troops?


I said that I would likely support helping out Israel if they were attacked in an unprovoked way, but not if they provoked the attack.  In your analogy, I would not support helping out Switzerland militarily if they actually provoked the attack.

----------


## twomp

> There's a lot of threats and bluster in international politics. 
> 
> North Korea says they will annihilate the USA nearly every day and are currently testing nuclear weapons. 
> 
> Are you more worried about them or Israel attacking someone?


Well if North Korea is threatening to attack the USA, then I would be  more worried about them because the USA is where I live you see. If Israel is threatening to bomb Iran, I don't see how that is of any issue to me. Isn't that kind of obvious?

----------


## itshappening

> I said that I would likely support helping out Israel if they were attacked in an unprovoked way, but not if they provoked the attack.  In your analogy, I would not support helping out Switzerland militarily if they actually provoked the attack.


So what if our hypothetical dictator came to power in a nearby border state to Switzerland and was amassing the troops ready for the invasion along with missile launchers and Switzerland's spies detected this activity and came to the conclusion that they were under threat and therefore carried out an operation which wasn't completely successful and our dictator regrouped and sent in his troops, would you support them then or would you have determined they made a provocative move in their initial strike?

----------


## american.swan

Wait a moment. 

Paul goes to Israel explaining his hands off libertarian approach to the Middle East. He explains his dislike for sending arms to Egypt and Israel and other nations. (upsetting the Military Industrial Complex). He then continues to request the end of all foreign aid, even to Israel. (Mind our own business and we're broke) 

Paul then drills Kerry in a congressional hearing on Presidential power to start wars. (follow the constitution) 

Now he says to defend Israel. How? He doesn't want to support an arms race in the region. He doesn't want the president starting wars. 

Without a declaration of war from Congress, Paul wouldn't defend Israel. Also, I suspect Paul would go in and get out. None of this nation building trash. 

I want to remind you there was a three president plan to fix the US. Jackson, the second, ended the bank. The third didn't win. I say that because it will take more than one president to fix this mess.

----------


## twomp

> I said that I would likely support helping out Israel if they were attacked in an unprovoked way, but not if they provoked the attack.  In your analogy, I would not support helping out Switzerland militarily if they actually provoked the attack.


I also fairly certain that if Tradtional Conservative were President, he wouldn't have many troops in nearby Germany to help out Switzerland anyways.

----------


## twomp

> So what if our hypothetical dictator came to power in a nearby border state to Switzerland and was amassing the troops ready for the invasion along with missile launchers and Switzerland's spies detected this activity and came to the conclusion that they were under threat and therefore carried out an operation which wasn't completely successful and our dictator regrouped and sent in his troops, would you support them then or would you have determined they made a provocative move in their initial strike?


Where in this fantasy scenario of yours is Germany, France, Britain, Spain... Have they all been wiped off the map already too? WHY ARE WE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN HELP OUT!!

----------


## american.swan

Right now we don't have a plan. Imagine Rand wins. How much would he be able to do before he's out? Who continues the revolution in the White House? We haven't got a plan.

----------


## Brett85

> So what if our hypothetical dictator came to power in a nearby border state to Switzerland and was amassing the troops ready for the invasion along with missile launchers and Switzerland's spies detected this activity and came to the conclusion that they were under threat and therefore carried out an operation which wasn't completely successful and our dictator regrouped and sent in his troops, would you support them then or would you have determined they made a provocative move in their initial strike?


There's a difference between using military action to respond to an imminent threat and using military action the way that Israel is threatening to, which is to simply prevent Iran from aquiring one nuclear weapon.  I'm not opposed to allowing Israel to do what it feels is necessary to defend itself, but I don't believe we should get involved in that kind of situation.  But in the analogy you presented, I wouldn't consider what Switzerland did to be an unprovoked attack.  That would just be an example of self defense.

----------


## itshappening

> Where in this fantasy scenario of yours is Germany, France, Britain, Spain... Have they all been wiped off the map already too? WHY ARE WE THE ONLY ONES WHO CAN HELP OUT!!


The Swiss president decides to call TC first and ask for help believing that because he has the strongest military in the world he could help out in repelling the invasion and stopping the slaughter of his citizens.

----------


## trey4sports

ughh, why would he say that an attack on Israel is an attack on the united states? That's just disgusting.

----------


## itshappening

> There's a difference between using military action to respond to an imminent threat and using military action the way that Israel is threatening to, which is to simply prevent Iran from aquiring one nuclear weapon.  I'm not opposed to allowing Israel to do what it feels is necessary to defend itself, but I don't believe we should get involved in that kind of situation.  But in the analogy you presented, I wouldn't consider what Switzerland did to be an unprovoked attack.  That would just be an example of self defense.


So are we basing policy on listening out for threats now? 

Are you concerned by North Korea's near daily propaganda in which it promises to annihilate the USA?

----------


## twomp

> The Swiss president decides to call TC first and ask for help believing that because he has the strongest military in the world he could help out in repelling the invasion and stopping the slaughter of his citizens.


Well if he decides to help out the innocent citizens in OTHER countries. I hope he helps out the unemployed and poor citizens of THIS COUNTRY first. You know give them universal health care and unemployment benefits and such. I mean since we are handing out stuff why not give it to your people first?

----------


## Brett85

> So are we basing policy on listening out for threats now? 
> 
> Are you concerned by North Korea's near daily propaganda in which it promises to annihilate the USA?


That's a problem, but there are ways to respond to threats without invading a country that poses a threat to us.  We can enhance our defenses at home, such as funding a missile defense program that could shoot down any missile that North Korea launches at us.

----------


## RP Supporter

Yay, Rand's winning over people who don't have a nice word to say about his father, the person who got me (and surely many others) into the liberty movement. Not to mention the man who helped form the movement that Rand got elected on the back of. I mean seriously, read the comments. Smug dislike of Ron and support for MORE wars, MORE saber rattling. And a glee that Rand seems to be straying from his "nutty" father.

I'm sorry, but if the only way Rand Paul can get elected is by pandering to these types and pretending that he's one of them, I really fail to see the difference between him and say, Mitt on this. I don't believe either hypothetical president would go to war with Iran, but neither are they interested in changing the conversation to reflect a non interventionist viewpoint.

I like Rand. I have been backing him through most of these controversies. I understand that part of the game is making the people think you're one of them. But I'd like to see him defend his father's vision a little more, instead of constantly sounding like a hawk who considers Israel's interests to be in our interests. By constantly sounding like them, non interventionism makes no headway and remains outside of the mainstream, and the neocons and the like can claim Rand as one of their own.

----------


## itshappening

> Yay, Rand's winning over people who don't have a nice word to say about his father, the person who got me (and surely many others) into the liberty movement. Not to mention the man who helped form the movement that Rand got elected on the back of. I mean seriously, read the comments. Smug dislike of rand and support for MORE wars, MORE saber rattling. And a glee that Rand seems to be straying from his "nutty" father.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if the only way Rand Paul can get elected is by pandering to these types and pretending that he's one of them, I really fail to see the difference between him and say, Mitt on this. I don't believe either hypothetical president would go to war with Iran, but neither are they interested in changing the conversation to reflect a non interventionist viewpoint.
> 
> I like Rand. I have been backing him through most of these controversies. I understand that part of the game is making the people think you're one of them. But I'd like to see him defend his father's vision a little more, instead of constantly sounding like a hawk who considers Israel's interests to be in our interests. By constantly sounding like them, non interventionism makes no headway and remains outside of the mainstream, and the neocons and the like can claim Rand as one of their own.


Unfortunately this is the only way he gets elected, pandering to the more hawkish elements in the GOP.  The ones who chant USA, USA, USA and want their candidate to sound tough.  If Rand doesn't sound tough and hawkish some fraud will outdo him on the issue and peel off those supporters.

His dad never won a single primary.  I think he knows what he's doing and I think he deserves some trust.

As for broader foreign policy, he makes a speech in Feb at heritage where he will lay it out.

----------


## pcosmar

> I think he deserves some trust.


You can think that.
Dishonesty does not deserve trust.

----------


## Maximus

Rand is a Constitutionalist, he wouldn't join a war unless Congress voted for it.  Chill.  No one is attacking Israel.

----------


## AlexAmore

> You can think that.
> Dishonesty does not deserve trust.


It's called "diplomacy" - "skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility". Rand is sweet talking his way to presidency. There's no other way. Nobody has even come close to winning a presidency by talking about their deepest darkest desires. 

I think everyone should be able to go down to their local military store buy a fully armed tank, a fighter jet, and a supercarrier with cash and have same day delivery no questions asked. But would I run on that platform or even talk about it? Of course not. I wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. I would tow the party line and talk about reasonable 2nd amendment rhetoric.

----------


## BSWPaulsen

> Getting into entangling alliances are the kind of thing that has promoted terrorist attacks on the USA in the past.


No doubt.

Of course, this _statement_ of Rand's isn't enough for me to abandon ship. I'll worry when his voting becomes a problem.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've been as big of a Rand supporter as anyone, and he hasn't lost my support.  But, I don't think he's doing a very good job of reaching out to the liberty movement at the moment.  I think he's so concerned about winning over rank and file Republicans and pro Israel people that he's forgetting that his father's supporters aren't going to just automatically support him no matter what.  He's going to run the risk of alienating a large chunk of Ron's supporters and make it hard for himself to raise money when/if he runs in 2016.


I completely agree.  Rand better get his head out of the establishment's backside and start talking to the liberty movement again.  Rand is just about to lose any liberty momentum that he may still have for 2016.

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

> I guess in summary, IF (big if) Iran see's a Ron Paul style foreign policy as an open invitation to try and remove Israel, then that decision will relegate President Paul to a place in history alongside John Tyler, and it would be the end of the liberty movement as we know it.


I lived in South Korea and currently live in Taiwan. My brother is still living in S.Korea and neither of us have any plans of leaving our second homes. With regard to the so called threat of N.Korea and mainland China, We believe it to be a matter that can only be resolved between the respective parties. There is plenty of saber rattling going on but ultimately the Taiwanese/Chinese are going to have to come to terms eventually and I see it improving rapidly. We just need to give it time and stay the hell out of it. It's just another front for the military industrial complex to broaden their agenda.

My brother and I support Ron Paul's non-interventionist philosophy and hope that Rand Paul endorses the same approach. When I hear what Rand has to say here I have mixed emotions because I want to here what Dr. Paul so eloquently says that brings peace to my soul. Yet I understand that he would likely be signing his death warrant if he became as outspoken as his father. It's a shame but it's also a reality we have to accept. If he has to maneuver his way into the presidency then so be it. Just get his ass in the White House and turn him loose. I'm willing to bet he gets it right.

----------


## purplechoe

> I don't think he has and any libertarian who votes LP in the general because they don't like Rand trying to *broaden their appeal* are idiots on a par with the LP voters in Justin Amash's district.


I think you meant selling out their principals, right?

----------


## purplechoe

> Before he could do that, he would have to make sure he fully explained how our nation would still be defended without some of the bases we have now.


So you basically disagree with Ron Paul on the issue? Good to know.

Your support of Glenn Beck in the past is becoming more clear to me. The more we dig, the clearer it becomes where you stand on the issues.

----------


## purplechoe

> NO ONE IS GOING TO ATTACK IRAN!!


It would be funny if this issue wasn't so damn serious.

----------


## HigherVision

> So you basically disagree with Ron Paul on the issue? Good to know.
> 
> Your support of Glenn Beck in the past is becoming more clear to me. The more we dig, the clearer it becomes where you stand on the issues.


I honestly feel that people within the liberty movement who still support Rand and like what he's doing should just leave the liberty movement and become full-on republicans. They would fit in great with the Glenn Becks and the Breitbarts. The Matt Drudges. There's already a whole niche for Rand's type of politics. Relatively limited government with interventions to enforce Christian morality like keeping cannabis illegal and having obscenity laws for porn and things, a relatively free market outside of that and military interventionism overseas. There's a whole movement for that already, it's not full on neoconservatism. They're against gun control and open borders and things like that. It's more like just standard conservatism.

----------


## itshappening

> I honestly feel that people within the liberty movement who still support Rand and like what he's doing should just leave the liberty movement and become full-on republicans. They would fit in great with the Glenn Becks and the Breitbarts. The Matt Drudges. There's already a whole niche for Rand's type of politics. Relatively limited government with interventions to enforce Christian morality like keeping cannabis illegal and having obscenity laws for porn and things, a relatively free market outside of that and military interventionism overseas. There's a whole movement for that already, it's not full on neoconservatism. They're against gun control and open borders and things like that. It's more like just standard conservatism.


It's a broad church, you don't win anything on a pure Libertarian platform and that's a fact.

----------


## HigherVision

> Unfortunately this is the only way he gets elected, pandering to the more hawkish elements in the GOP.  The ones who chant USA, USA, USA and want their candidate to sound tough.  If Rand doesn't sound tough and hawkish some fraud will outdo him on the issue and peel off those supporters.
> 
> His dad never won a single primary.  I think he knows what he's doing and I think he deserves some trust.
> 
> As for broader foreign policy, he makes a speech in Feb at heritage where he will lay it out.


His dad grew the libertarian movement enormously, from not even having a hundred people show up to lectures into filling stadiums. If Rand were as libertarian as his dad it would likely continue to have the effect of growing the liberty movement. So that at some point libertarian ideas *are* popular politically. If you're just going to pander to the folks who support war and statism instead of challenging them and spreading the truth what's the point?

----------


## itshappening

> I think you meant selling out their principals, right?


you don't need to sell out your principles to get 50+1%, you just need to make people feel comfortable through a combination of nuanced positions, keeping quiet about other stuff and selling the message better. 

Do you think the neocons sell out their principles of war everywhere when they run candidates who promise a humble foreign policy? 

No, they use it to get into power and then execute their true principles.

----------


## itshappening

> His dad grew the libertarian movement enormously, from not even having a hundred people show up to lectures into filling stadiums. If Rand were as libertarian as his dad it would likely continue to have the effect of growing the liberty movement. So that at some point libertarian ideas *are* popular politically. If you're just going to pander to the folks who support war and statism instead of challenging them and spreading the truth what's the point?


His dad never won a primary and never wanted to be president. 

Rand is trying to win primaries in multiple states and be president.

This means sounding hawkish and to your hardcore USA, USA, USA chanting GOP voter and draping yourself in the flag of Israel. 

So far he's doing a great job as the whole conservative media and pundit class are raving about him .

----------


## purplechoe

> LOL its the entire Hot Air crowd vs. AF on there. Go AF! My money is on you!


Thanks for the heads up. I was banned from that bunch of psychopaths during the '08 election for merely stating my views about non-interventionism so I pretty much stay away from them like the plague. It seems that they at least are letting people with opposing views post on there and it not being such a circle jerk.

So having read Anti-Federalist comments on there, BRAVO SIR!!! You are my hero for expressing those views in such a well stated manner in the vipers den!!!

----------


## HigherVision

> you don't need to sell out your principles to get 50+1%, you just need to make people feel comfortable through a combination of nuanced positions, keeping quiet about other stuff and selling the message better. 
> 
> Do you think the neocons sell out their principles of war everywhere when they run candidates who promise a humble foreign policy? 
> 
> No, they use it to get into power and then execute their true principles.


They haven't claimed anything close to a moderate foreign policy for over a decade now. They were able to change the hearts and minds of the people into becoming more zealously pro-war through a campaign of propaganda. So why we can't change peoples minds and win people over with the truth and a message of freedom? In fact I think we've already started to. What Rand is doing is taking the wind out of our sails just as this thing was getting going with this watered down crap.

----------


## HigherVision

> His dad never won a primary and never wanted to be president. 
> 
> Rand is trying to win primaries in multiple states and be president.
> 
> This means sounding hawkish and to your hardcore USA, USA, USA chanting GOP voter and draping yourself in the flag of Israel. 
> 
> So far he's doing a great job as the whole conservative media and pundit class are raving about him .


Rand has been doing a great job in building a successful, lucrative political career for himself. He's proven to the big shots like Bill Kristol that he's a serious politician with a serious career ahead of him and someone who will probably be part of the political establishment for years to come, not someone on the fringes like his father. But how does that benefit *me*? It doesn't.

----------


## itshappening

> They haven't claimed anything close to a moderate foreign policy for over a decade now. They were able to change the hearts and minds of the people into becoming more zealously pro-war through a campaign of propaganda. So why we can't change peoples minds and win people over with the truth and a message of freedom? In fact I think we've already started to. What Rand is doing is taking the wind out of our sails just as this thing was getting going with this watered down crap.


The fact is no one is going to get elected president on a LP platforrm. 

No one. 

Look at the GOP nominee's of the past 20 years, Rand has to sound like them to win and that's what he's doing.

It doesn't mean he's selling out his principles. 

People are war weary including GOP voters but they want their candidate to be a strong supporter of Israel and a strong supporter of national defense. 

Rand is basically giving them what they want. 

He's not on a crusade or an education mission.  

He could run that way and try and educate but like Ron he will lose. 

He's trying to get 40 percent of the vote in Iowa, NH and SC so everything he does is geared to that. 

He's not going to sound like Ron so don't be disappointed.  Nearly everyone knows this.

----------


## purplechoe

> Yes there are lots of factors which lead to Iran's current state which can be blamed on the US, but the fact remains, that Iran is state ruled by religious fundamentalism.


As opposed to Israel whose claim to the land is that God gave it to them? Or the support of Christian-Zionists for Israel is not because of religious fundamentalism. Spare me the BS.

----------


## HigherVision

> The fact is no one is going to get elected president on a LP platforrm. 
> 
> No one. 
> 
> Look at the GOP nominee's of the past 20 years, Rand has to sound like them to win and that's what he's doing.
> 
> It doesn't mean he's selling out his principles. 
> 
> People are war weary including GOP voters but they want their candidate to be a strong supporter of Israel and a strong supporter of national defense. 
> ...


Can the Rand Paul supporters split from the Ron Paul/liberty movement then, since we have different goals? I'm not really interested in Rand Paul's political career, I'm interested in people who have policies that are actually in *my* interest as a libertarian.

----------


## itshappening

> Rand has been doing a great job in building a successful, lucrative political career for himself. He's proven to the big shots like Bill Kristol that he's a serious politician with a serious career ahead of him and someone who will probably be part of the political establishment for years to come, not someone on the fringes like his father. But how does that benefit *me*? It doesn't.


A lucrative political career?  He'd probably earn twice as much than US senator and work less as an eye doctor in Kentucky. 

He wants to be president to advance liberty and continue this project of taking over the GOP.

----------


## purplechoe

> For Immediate Release
> November 19, 2009
> 
> BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY  Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administrations decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts.
> 
> "Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution," said Dr. Paul. "These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies."


And there goes another blow for human decency.

----------


## itshappening

> Can the Rand Paul supporters split from the Ron Paul/liberty movement then, since we have different goals? I'm not really interested in Rand Paul's political career, I'm interested in people who have policies that are actually in *my* interest as a libertarian.


You're being very selfish if you don't see what's happening. 

Rand is standing up for liberty in the US Senate, the only senator who blocks bills and puts up amendments and gives lengthy speeches on the 4th amendment etc. 

Have you been following him? 

He's showing the way to a lot of potential candidates.

Slowly the GOP is changing.

----------


## HigherVision

> A lucrative political career?  He'd probably earn twice as much than US senator and work less as an eye doctor in Kentucky. 
> 
> He wants to be president to advance liberty and continue this project of taking over the GOP.


Maybe just the prestige then. Though I'm skeptical he's not making money off of any of this. I mean there have to be other sources of revenue besides just his on the books salary. He's been able to write books and things, which people otherwise would not care about were he not a senator. I don't believe for a minute that he's not doing all this stuff with Israel and everything else for himself and that instead it's all part of some great mission.

----------


## purplechoe

> The biggest issue I have with his statement is that he basically is saying that we will do anything to defend Israel, even if they get attacked in a way that can be considered blowback for their own actions. If they do any provoking, they alone should deal with the consequences.


sounds like you have more sense then some of the veteran members here...

----------


## HigherVision

> You're being very selfish if you don't see what's happening. 
> 
> Rand is standing up for liberty in the US Senate, the only senator who blocks bills and puts up amendments and gives lengthy speeches on the 4th amendment etc. 
> 
> Have you been following him? 
> 
> He's showing the way to a lot of potential candidates.
> 
> Slowly the GOP is changing.


Yes I've been following him, he deviates from being pro-liberty quite a bit. And from what I've heard from him in interviews and things it's not because he's putting on a front, he genuinely doesn't believe what his father does. To me he's just a slightly better than average conservative and not a particularly exciting figure. The fact that he's Ron Paul's son is the most interesting thing about him, but when you get past that there's just not a whole lot to the guy.

----------


## itshappening

> Maybe just the prestige then. Though I'm skeptical he's not making money off of any of this. I mean there have to be other sources of revenue besides just his on the books salary. He's been able to write books and things, which people otherwise would not care about were he not a senator. I don't believe for a minute that he's not doing all this stuff with Israel and everything else for himself and that instead it's all part of some great mission.


He's obviously doing it to run in 16 and win. 

He's not doing it for money believe me, he could have a quiet life in Kentucky as an eye doctor with his boys, patients, his wife, etc. instead he's shutting between KY and DC and doing 10 interviews a week slowly advancing liberty and talking directly to GOP voters, the exact people he needs to reach. I think he's very smart at what he's doing and not to be underestimated.

----------


## purplechoe

I'll just say that we either have some agent provocateurs here or people that just don't understand or disagree with Ron Paul on the issues. It's good that they let us know where they stand so we know who our friends and enemies are.

----------


## purplechoe

> If you were president and Switzerland was invaded by a country with a dictator hell bent on stealing all its gold and enslaving its population and the president of Switzerland pleads with you to help by sending in troops from nearby bases in Germany, would you put the phone down on him and say 'sorry, I can't help your people despite us being friends for 230 years i'm a libertarian with an a non-intervenionist foreign policy' or would you go to congress and ask for authorization to send in those troops?


How about we ask the people what they think and if they want to pressure their representatives to go to war let them voice their concerns and stop treating our presidents like $#@!ing kings, ok?

----------


## HigherVision

> He's obviously doing it to run in 16 and win. 
> 
> He's not doing it for money believe me, he could have a quiet life in Kentucky as an eye doctor with his boys, patients, his wife, etc. instead he's shutting between KY and DC and doing 10 interviews a week slowly advancing liberty and talking directly to GOP voters, the exact people he needs to reach. I think he's very smart at what he's doing and not to be underestimated.


He could have a quiet life but being a senator is a big deal and it's considered a huge achievement to most people. And becoming president is considered like the ultimate accomplishment. Lots of people leave behind quieter lives and higher paying jobs and things to go into politics who aren't particularly principled at all. I mean Mitt Romney probably made a lot more in his job and blew a ton of money running for president for no other reason than that he wanted to be president. Why is it such an absurd notion that it could be the same for Rand?

----------


## itshappening

> Yes I've been following him, he deviates from being pro-liberty quite a bit. And from what I've heard from him in interviews and things it's not because he's putting on a front, he genuinely doesn't believe what his father does. To me he's just a slightly better than average conservative and not a particularly exciting figure. The fact that he's Ron Paul's son is the most interesting thing about him, but when you get past that there's just not a whole lot to the guy.


That's a really stupid and insulting statement because he's not a standard conservative, none of which take the principled stands Rand has taken on the 4th amendment, foreign aid, actually cutting government and proposing a budget that cuts 500 billion dollars in the first year.  

I think you need to read his Wikipedia page and remind yourself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

----------


## itshappening

> He could have a quiet life but being a senator is a big deal and it's considered a huge achievement to most people. And becoming president is considered like the ultimate accomplishment. Lots of people leave behind quieter lives and higher paying jobs and things to go into politics who aren't particularly principled at all. I mean Mitt Romney probably made a lot more in his job and blew a ton of money running for president for no other reason than that he wanted to be president. Why is it such an absurd notion that it could be the same for Rand?


Mitt was worth like $200m, Rand is not worth that and has to work for a living.

----------


## HigherVision

> That's a really stupid and insulting statement because he's not a standard conservative, none of which take the principled stands Rand has taken on the 4th amendment, foreign aid, actually cutting government and proposing a budget that cuts 500 billion dollars in the first year.  
> 
> I think you need to read his Wikipedia page and remind yourself
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul


I'm aware of those things, but he also supports the war on drugs for the most part, voted in favor of sanctions repeatedly, voting for a 600 billion dollar military budget, and is now in Israel wearing a yamaka making declarations that the Arabs better watch out. Overall I'm not too impressed by the guy. Rank and file conservatives sometimes support the constitution too, for example Sarah Palin is a strong supporter of the second amendment. But I wouldn't call her a strong supporter of liberty overall.

----------


## itshappening

> I'm aware of those things, but he also supports the war on drugs for the most part, voted in favor of sanctions repeatedly, voting for a 600 billion dollar military budget, and is now in Israel wearing a yamaka making declarations that the Arabs better watch out. Overall I'm not too impressed by the guy. Rank and file conservatives sometimes support the constitution too, for example Sarah Palin is a strong supporter of the second amendment. But I wouldn't call her a strong supporter of liberty overall.


Who are you impressed by?  I'm guessing nobody.

You're not interested in electoral politics, we get it.

----------


## HigherVision

> Mitt was worth like $200m, Rand is not worth that and has to work for a living.


Mitt worked for a living. I don't like him but he was very successful in business, that's work unless you're a socialist and think that the capitalists are exploiters and don't do anything. The point is he was willing to take a huge pay cut to become president just because he wanted to be president, not because he was on some quest for liberty. It's not unusual for people to do that.

----------


## itshappening

> Mitt worked for a living. I don't like him but he was very successful in business, that's work unless you're a socialist and think that the capitalists are exploiters and don't do anything. The point is he was willing to take a huge pay cut to become president just because he wanted to be president, not because he was on some quest for liberty. It's not unusual for people to do that.


The difference is Mitt earned his money and then sought political office. 

What i'm saying is Rand can earn more than the 180k he gets as a U.S Senator and have a quieter life in Bowling Green Kentucky.

----------


## HigherVision

> Who are you impressed by?  I'm guessing nobody.
> 
> You're not interested in electoral politics, we get it.


I was impressed by Ron Paul. I liked the Libertarian party candidates who ran in my local election and voted for them. And I didn't like some of Gary Johnson's positions but I liked him overall, particularly his opposition to war with Iran which is much stronger than Rand's. So I am interested in politics I'm just not interested in politics as usual and 'playing the game' and all of that. I'm interested in people who are willing to go against the grain for liberty and not just fall in line like Rand is doing. And I guess I don't care as much about winning in the short term future as much as I do the long term goal of making liberty popular.

----------


## HigherVision

> The difference is Mitt earned his money and then sought political office. 
> 
> What i'm saying is Rand can earn more than the 180k he gets as a U.S Senator and have a quieter life in Bowling Green Kentucky.


Well whatever, neither of us can read his mind. I'm just saying I'm not convinced that his 'playing the game' isn't more out of self-interest than anything else.

----------


## itshappening

> *I was impressed by Ron Paul*. I liked the Libertarian party candidates who ran in my local election and voted for them. And I didn't like some of Gary Johnson's positions but I liked him overall, particularly his opposition to war with Iran which is much stronger than Rand's. So I am interested in politics I'm just not interested in politics as usual and 'playing the game' and all of that. I'm interested in people who are willing to go against the grain for liberty and not just fall in line like Rand is doing.


OK, so you were impressed by Ron Paul.

Are you aware Ron Paul voted for the AUMF against Afghanistan on 14th Sept 2001?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authori...nst_Terrorists

That's the Authorization they have used to keep the U.S in Afghanistan at a cost of about 1 trillion dollars.

So, you can find faults in any politician.

----------


## purplechoe

> There's a lot of threats and bluster in international politics. 
> 
> North Korea says they will annihilate the USA nearly every day and are currently testing nuclear weapons. 
> 
> Are you more worried about them or Israel attacking someone?


If they attack us with nuclear weapons they would be wiped out the following day. Here's another scenario. How about the fact that the crime families who run our government need and are the ones who help these monsters get into power so that later they have an excuse for their foreign policy? Do you even study history?

Problem, reaction, solution? We talk about that here on the daily basis about the domestic issues but it applies to foreign policy as well...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I was impressed by Ron Paul. I liked the Libertarian party candidates who ran in my local election and voted for them. And I didn't like some of Gary Johnson's positions but I liked him overall, particularly his opposition to war with Iran which is much stronger than Rand's. So I am interested in politics I'm just not interested in politics as usual and 'playing the game' and all of that. I'm interested in people who are willing to go against the grain for liberty and not just fall in line like Rand is doing.


Oh please.  Rand isn't "falling in line".

----------


## itshappening

I guess Ron Paul "fell into line" on 14th Sept 2001

What do you say HigherVision?

----------


## HigherVision

> OK, so you were impressed by Ron Paul.
> 
> Are you aware Ron Paul voted for the AUMF against Afghanistan on 14th Sept 2001?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authori...nst_Terrorists
> 
> That's the Authorization they have used to keep the U.S in Afghanistan at a cost of about 1 trillion dollars.
> 
> So, you can find faults in any politician.


Yeah I'm aware of it and I think it's weak. But that's pretty much the only really bad thing he's done in his whole political career as far as I know. Literally every single vote he's ever cast besides that in numerous decades is consistent with being pro-liberty. They called him Dr. No because he voted no on almost everything. All the statist crap they shove on us. Whereas Rand seems just like a go-along to get along on a lot of things.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'll just say that we either have some agent provocateurs here or people that just don't understand or disagree with Ron Paul on the issues. It's good that they let us know where they stand so we know who our friends and enemies are.


I am too and I am counting those who are mischaracterizing Rand's actions and words with the enemy side.

----------


## HigherVision

> I guess Ron Paul "fell into line" on 14th Sept 2001
> 
> What do you say HigherVision?


Yes I would say that on that one occasion unfortunately he did. But the difference is, whereas Ron voted for that one thing which was just supposed to be the authorization to hunt down the alleged terrorists behind 9/11, Rand said he would have voted yes for the full-on war with Afghanistan.

----------


## purplechoe

> Yay, Rand's winning over people who don't have a nice word to say about his father, the person who got me (and surely many others) into the liberty movement. Not to mention the man who helped form the movement that Rand got elected on the back of. I mean seriously, read the comments. Smug dislike of Ron and support for MORE wars, MORE saber rattling. And a glee that Rand seems to be straying from his "nutty" father.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if the only way Rand Paul can get elected is by pandering to these types and pretending that he's one of them, I really fail to see the difference between him and say, Mitt on this. I don't believe either hypothetical president would go to war with Iran, but neither are they interested in changing the conversation to reflect a non interventionist viewpoint.
> 
> I like Rand. I have been backing him through most of these controversies. I understand that part of the game is making the people think you're one of them. But I'd like to see him defend his father's vision a little more, instead of constantly sounding like a hawk who considers Israel's interests to be in our interests. By constantly sounding like them, non interventionism makes no headway and remains outside of the mainstream, and the neocons and the like can claim Rand as one of their own.


I'm tempted to give you some +rep for that statement, something I have never done here... I don't like that whole concept of it on the site BTW...

----------


## HigherVision

> I am too and I am counting those who are mischaracterizing Rand's actions and words with the enemy side.


Are these the words of an enemy?:

REP. RON PAUL, (R), TEXAS: "Its our money and our weapons. But I think we encouraged it. Certainly, the president has said nothing to diminish it. As a matter of fact, he justifies it on moral grounds, saying, oh, they have a right to do this, without ever mentioning the tragedy of Gaza. You know, the real problems that are there. To me, I look at it like a concentration camp. And people are making homemade bombs, like theyre the aggressors?" - http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-on-...a-prison-camp/

That's called real talk (or 'Texas Straight Talk' as Ron calls it), not like Rand's pandering bull$#@!.

----------


## purplechoe

> Unfortunately this is the only way he gets elected, pandering to the more hawkish elements in the GOP.  The ones who chant USA, USA, USA and want their candidate to sound tough.  If Rand doesn't sound tough and hawkish some fraud will outdo him on the issue and peel off those supporters.
> 
> His dad never won a single primary.  I think he knows what he's doing and I think he deserves some trust.
> 
> As for broader foreign policy, he makes a speech in Feb at heritage where he will lay it out.


Sounds like Ronald Reagan to me, how did that work out for us?

----------


## purplechoe

> I am too and I am counting those who are mischaracterizing Rand's actions and words with the enemy side.


I'll just say one thing to you, something that I've come to the conclusion a long time ago, you're not as intelligent as you think you are. I know what my limitations are and I don't go discussing topics I know little about. I wish the likes of you would do a little studying of history by actually listening to Ron Paul and maybe reading his books?

----------


## dillo

How in any way shape or form is Israel our ally?  They are one of the major reasons the entire arab world hates us.  Have they literally infiltrated every level of our government?  AIPAC should be cut out of political donations.  I wish no ill will upon Israel, but it always pisses me off when someone says they are our ally.  There is 0 benefit to the USA in this current situation.

----------


## purplechoe

Just to be clear, those of us who agree with Ron Paul on foreign policy are the whack jobs, right? Good to know...

----------


## HigherVision

> How in any way shape or form is Israel our ally?  They are one of the major reasons the entire arab world hates us.  Have they literally infiltrated every level of our government?  AIPAC should be cut out of political donations.  I wish no ill will upon Israel, but it always pisses me off when someone says they are our ally.  There is 0 benefit to the USA in this current situation.


AIPAC will never be cut out for us so we have to cut them out by not supporting politicians who pander to the Zionists. Which unfortunately means not supporting Rand Paul. It's true that Israel is not our ally, they just use us as a proxy army. Not everyone in Israel agrees with these policies and is bad, but the ones who are is who Rand is pandering to. He's not speaking to Israeli groups against the occupation or anything like that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Are these the words of an enemy?:
> 
> REP. RON PAUL, (R), TEXAS: "It’s our money and our weapons. But I think we encouraged it. Certainly, the president has said nothing to diminish it. As a matter of fact, he justifies it on moral grounds, saying, oh, they have a right to do this, without ever mentioning the tragedy of Gaza. You know, the real problems that are there. To me, I look at it like a concentration camp. And people are making homemade bombs, like they’re the aggressors?" - http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-on-...a-prison-camp/
> 
> That's called real talk (or 'Texas Straight Talk' as Ron calls it), not like Rand's pandering bull$#@!.


Here's some straight talk for you.

The slurs against Ron that he was anti-Israel, even an anti-semite, stuck, because of his careless use of words.  Rand hasn't had 30 years in office, so he has an opportunity to not create for himself numerous landmines from his own words, that he has to overcome in a presidential race.

In case it's news to you, because it must be, Rand has to breakthrough the propaganda wall that so many Republicans have had heaped at them for years.  Ron couldn't do it.  

If you don't realize that in addition to trying his best to stop the steamroller of tyranny, Rand is taking back the tea party and redefining terms that the leftists long ago smeared to all hell, I don't really know what to say to you.  Frankly, I am amazed at how well he is doing.  It's almost masterful.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> AIPAC will never be cut out for us so we have to cut them out by not supporting politicians who pander to the Zionists. Which unfortunately means not supporting Rand Paul. It's true that Israel is not our ally, they just use us as a proxy army. Not everyone in Israel agrees with these policies and is bad, but the ones who are is who Rand is pandering to. He's not speaking to Israeli groups against the occupation or anything like that.


Speak for yourself.  Go vote for the Libertarian, then, if you don't like Rand.  But, you sure as hell don't speak for this movement.

----------


## purplechoe

> Rand is a Constitutionalist, he wouldn't join a war unless Congress voted for it.  Chill.  No one is attacking Israel.


But, but Israel is being attacked by Iran's proxies, etc...

Isn't it the Muslims world problem with us is that US is a proxy for Israel? Considering that AIPAC actually has the veto on our foreign policy, maybe they have a point? And when one brings up the point that most of our media and entertainment is run by over dominantly Jewish folks, one is called an anti-semite for even mentioning such a thing? How about those Jews that are anti-zionists? Are they anti-semetic too?

----------


## purplechoe

> It's called "diplomacy" - "skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility". Rand is sweet talking his way to presidency. There's no other way. Nobody has even come close to winning a presidency by talking about their deepest darkest desires. 
> 
> I think everyone should be able to go down to their local military store buy a fully armed tank, a fighter jet, and a supercarrier with cash and have same day delivery no questions asked. But would I run on that platform or even talk about it? Of course not. I wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. I would tow the party line and talk about reasonable 2nd amendment rhetoric.


So we have to trick them into voting for liberty? It won't work. The only real solution to the problems we face is educating the general public. Something that Ron Paul agrees with me on.

Edited to add - to be continued, I need to get some sleep...

----------


## HigherVision

> Speak for yourself.  Go vote for the Libertarian, then, if you don't like Rand.  But, you sure as hell don't speak for this movement.


I support Ron Paul's foreign policy not Rand's. So if 'this movement' is the Rand Paul movement now you're right that I'm not part of it.

----------


## HigherVision

> The slurs against Ron that he was anti-Israel, even an anti-semite, stuck, because of his careless use of words.


Yeah, careless use of words i.e. speaking the truth. That happens to be what I _like_ about Ron.

----------


## jkob

Well, Israel being nuked or being under siege from a foreign country is a little different than going to war preemptively for them or going along with their foreign policy A candidate would have to say the same thing about defending the UK or France or Japan too, fortunately for us the likelihood of any of those countries facing an attack of that sort is essentially nil and only lives on in the fantasies paranoid neoconservatives. If saying this will stop those weirdos from pissing themselves then whatever. Saying he wouldn't end foreign aid to Israel before eliminating foreign aid to countries like Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc doesn't really bother me either, it all needs to go. Again, if saying that is what it takes to stop dumbass Fox News listeners from thinking Rand wants to turn his back on Israel and support dem terrorists then so be it. 

If Rand starts supporting intervening in Syria or whatever then it will be cause for alarm.

----------


## TheTyke

"You don't have to worry about Rand becoming a neocon. He's much too smart for that." - *Carol Paul*

His _mother_ had to say that in the senate race during one of the other dozens of media-inspired fits of eating our own. Trolls encourage it, but it's still our fault if we fall for it over and over. These bashers don't even know Rand... he gave up a career he was happy with to wade into the swamp, enduring lies, smears and stress to his family, to fight for our liberty with all the strength and strategy he could muster.

You're darn right he expects us in the liberty movement to have his back, while he wins over the others. He's earned it a dozen times over. He probably can't begin understand how day in and day out, he's voting right, raising heck in the senate, and opening people's minds, but we seem to wait for any quote or misstep to tear into him like so many piranhas. He's been helping his dad and fighting for liberty his whole life - surely longer than most of us have even been activists! If we spent half as much time attacking our ACTUAL enemies, this country would already be a better place.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves, especially the ones posting over and over in desperation to discredit him. It doesn't represent the movement or the silent majority... I suspect most of us are busy actually working for liberty and not posting on forums all day.

Sheesh!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> NO ONE IS GOING TO ATTACK IRAN!!  
> 
> And he has said numerous times that the goal is to end ALL FOREIGN AID.
> 
> You just want him to say it the way that you want it said.  That's all.


Iran has been attacked. By Israeli intelligence arms, and I would not doubt our presence in helping to facilitate these attacks. The capitalization of "no one is going to attack Iran" is actually quite humorous. Cyber warfare, sanctions, blown up scientists- *these are attacks.*

I would love to hear Rand Paul state unequivocally that he does not support such attacks. Even/especially in the case of supposedly protecting Israel.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Speak for yourself.  Go vote for the Libertarian, then, if you don't like Rand. * But, you sure as hell don't speak for this movement*.


Neither does Rand, goddamnit!

----------


## paulbot24

Rand is the only Senator that actually has the courage to say what needs to be said. I can't believe how god awful the Senate would be without him since he clearly stands alone when he says things like:

 "I don't feel comfortable signing a bill I haven't actually read. You only gave us a few hours to read over 500 pages. How could anybody have read this? I think that is the most troubling part. Nobody on this floor has read this bill. Why are we passing laws we don't even read and expecting our people to respect us? You wonder why our approval ratings are so low? Do you think this kind of irresponsibility might have something to do with that?"

The rest of the Senate was mad because it was past 8pm and he was "making them stay late." He basically said, "Too bad." 

With the way some people talk on here, they _might_ be satisfied with Jesus. "Maybe. I don't know. He visited Israel. He seems principled, but he's no Ron Paul though......."

----------


## torchbearer

> With the way some people talk on here, they _might_ be satisfied with Jesus. "Maybe. I don't know. He visited Israel. He seems principled, but he's no Ron Paul though......."



lulz.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Neither does Rand, goddamnit!


I don't recall saying he did.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Iran has been attacked. By Israeli intelligence arms, and I would not doubt our presence in helping to facilitate these attacks. The capitalization of "no one is going to attack Iran" is actually quite humorous. Cyber warfare, sanctions, blown up scientists- *these are attacks.*
> 
> I would love to hear Rand Paul state unequivocally that he does not support such attacks. Even/especially in the case of supposedly protecting Israel.


You must have missed the post where I said I had intended to say ISRAEL; not Iran.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'll just say one thing to you, something that I've come to the conclusion a long time ago, you're not as intelligent as you think you are. I know what my limitations are and I don't go discussing topics I know little about. I wish the likes of you would do a little studying of history by actually listening to Ron Paul and maybe reading his books?


Wow, imagine that.  Another personal attack.  lol.

Purple, I have been reading Ron Paul's stuff probably before you were even an itch in your daddy's pants.  So, please stick a pin in your over-inflated ego and let the hot air blow out.

----------


## COpatriot

This was very disappointing to read. An attack on Israel is an attack on Israel, not the US. But I guess he has to do what he has to do. I'd you want a chance to succeed in this $#@!ty party you have to placate the neocons and the rapture freaks. This was why Ron never stood a chance.

----------


## Brett85

> This was very disappointing to read. An attack on Israel is an attack on Israel, not the US. But I guess he has to do what he has to do. I'd you want a chance to succeed in this $#@!ty party you have to placate the neocons and the rapture freaks. This was why Ron never stood a chance.


Probably, but I just wonder whether he would say, "an attack on Great Britain is an attack on the United States," or "an attack on South Korea is an attack on the United States," etc.  If he's just making an exception for Israel, fine.  But I'm worried about how far he actually believes in taking this.  Does he believe that we should be responsible for defending the 50+ countries around the world that we're currently forced to defend through treaty?  If so, that would be a huge departure from Ron's foreign policy.

----------


## dinosaur

> Wow, imagine that.  Another personal attack.  lol.
> 
> Purple, I have been reading Ron Paul's stuff probably before you were even an itch in your daddy's pants.  So, please stick a pin in your over-inflated ego and let the hot air blow out.


Can a sock puppet have an over-inflated ego?    Kidding, sort of...I'm not sure that I believe that some of these people are even for real.




> Originally Posted by purplechoe  
> I'll just say one thing to you, something that I've come to the conclusion a long time ago, you're not as intelligent as you think you are. I know what my limitations are and I don't go discussing topics I know little about. I wish the likes of you would do a little studying of history by actually listening to Ron Paul and maybe reading his books?


Purplechoe, I just gave you a neg rep for arguing without even attempting to inject substance into your argument.

----------


## PatriotOne

Lady Gaga posting Hotair articles to bolster his Rand Paul hatred? Now that's what I call doing the "full-moron".

----------


## iakobos

‘any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States’

I've had my doubts about Rand for a while now.  He obviously has some libertarian beliefs that match Ron Paul's and more importantly with my beliefs.  But it's obvious now that entangling alliances is one of Rand's beliefs.  To me this is a fairly core belief and a repudiation of libertarianism.  It leads down the road to all the other foreign policy debacles that we are presently experiencing.  Very disappointing.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Can a sock puppet have an over-inflated ego?    Kidding, sort of...I'm not sure that I believe that some of these people are even for real.
> 
> 
> 
> Purplechoe, I just gave you a neg rep for arguing without even attempting to inject substance into your argument.


my +rep counters your neg- rep.  the substance is there, you just don't like to hear it.

----------


## Badger Paul

No, Rand is driving a wedge between us all by lonesome by making statements like this. The U.S is under no treaty obligations to defend Israel. We did not go to war with Egypt or Syria back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. Yet Rand wants to extend the U.S. security umbrella to Israel itself which would mean we would presumably have to attack Gaza if Hamas launched a few missiles. No American President has ever done this. If we do so for Israel, then why not places Georgia for example? Where does it stop? More importantly, where does Rand's pandering stop? Is he that desperate that he'll basically try to contradict half a century of U.S. policy towards Israel by going beyond just aid to blanket security guarantees? What if Israel uses such guarantees and decided to launch not just a premptive conventional strike on Iran but a nuclear one? You see, you can say what you want to get elected but it comes back to bite you when you take office and at that point it's not worth it. I'm not joining the Rand Paul campaign to make Israel a part of NATO.

----------


## Badger Paul

_"Speak for yourself. Go vote for the Libertarian, then, if you don't like Rand. But, you sure as hell don't speak for this movement. "_

And neither do you. Don't think for one minute people invested their time and money for the last five years for one's man ambition. They did so for a cause and did so because one brave man spoke to that cause and was willing to stand up for it and had his back because they knew he wasn't in it for himself but for what he believed in. And it was the efforts and money of those people who created a movement around that cause and made Rand a U.S. Senator.  

Rand may be the better politician, better speaker, better manager, more polished etc. I'll grant you all this. But all of these talents mean nothing if it takes repudiating what was the central core of his father's campaigns - that foreign policy with its entangling alliances and global reach and ties into global capitalism was damaging the country with its bigger government and big debts - to win higher office.

You sow trouble in your own house all you inherit is the wind. Rand should keep this Bible verse in mind the next time he want to impress his new "friends."

----------


## Brett85

> No, Rand is driving a wedge between us all by lonesome by making statements like this. The U.S is under no treaty obligations to defend Israel. We did not go to war with Egypt or Syria back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War. Yet Rand wants to extend the U.S. security umbrella to Israel itself which would mean we would presumably have to attack Gaza if Hamas launched a few missiles. No American President has ever done this. If we do so for Israel, then why not places Georgia for example? Where does it stop? More importantly, where does Rand's pandering stop? Is he that desperate that he'll basically try to contradict half a century of U.S. policy towards Israel by going beyond just aid to blanket security guarantees? What if Israel uses such guarantees and decided to launch not just a premptive conventional strike on Iran but a nuclear one? You see, you can say what you want to get elected but it comes back to bite you when you take office and at that point it's not worth it. I'm not joining the Rand Paul campaign to make Israel a part of NATO.


I imagine Rand meant that the U.S would come to Israel's defense if another country launched a full scale invasion into Israel, but he should've been more clear.  I hope that he actually listens to people's concerns and clears this issue up.

----------


## klamath

> I imagine Rand meant that the U.S would come to Israel's defense if another country launched a full scale invasion into Israel, but he should've been more clear.  I hope that he actually listens to people's concerns and clears this issue up.



+1

----------


## cajuncocoa

> _"Speak for yourself. Go vote for the Libertarian, then, if you don't like Rand. But, you sure as hell don't speak for this movement. "_
> 
> And neither do you. Don't think for one minute people invested their time and money for the last five years for one's man ambition. They did so for a cause and did so because one brave man spoke to that cause and was willing to stand up for it and had his back because they knew he wasn't in it for himself but for what he believed in. And it was the efforts and money of those people who created a movement around that cause and made Rand a U.S. Senator.  
> 
> Rand may be the better politician, better speaker, better manager, more polished etc. I'll grant you all this. But all of these talents mean nothing if it takes repudiating what was the central core of his father's campaigns - that foreign policy with its entangling alliances and global reach and ties into global capitalism was damaging the country with its bigger government and big debts - to win higher office.
> 
> You sow trouble in your own house all you inherit is the wind. Rand should keep this Bible verse in mind the next time he want to impress his new "friends."


I owe you another +rep

----------


## Badger Paul

Thank you.

----------


## georgiaboy

> I imagine Rand meant that the U.S would come to Israel's defense if another country launched a full scale invasion into Israel, but he should've been more clear.  I hope that he actually listens to people's concerns and clears this issue up.


I agree with what you imagine to be true, and the general American population supports a view like this.  For better or worse, everyone hearkens back to WWII and how we Americans came in and stopped the Nazis.  We like to think that if another Hitler showed up on the world stage, we'd be there to beat him back.  That's what Rand was playing to.

However, I disagree that he should've been more clear.  Rand is perfectly delivering his rhetoric to appeal to a wide swath of the electorate.

Those of us who continue to watch Rand's actions, votes, amendments, fillibusters, proposals, etc., as well as these nuanced words, can see him for what he is - the greatest embodiment of conservative politics I've ever witnessed.

----------


## dinosaur

> Rand may be the better politician, better speaker, better manager, more polished etc. I'll grant you all this. But all of these talents mean nothing if it takes repudiating what was the central core of his father's campaigns - that foreign policy with its entangling alliances and global reach and ties into global capitalism was damaging the country with its bigger government and big debts - to win higher office.



Claiming a permanent ally does put a nation in danger...only if they actually get sucked into a war because of it.  Rand's central argument when arguing his Israel policy has been that the biggest threat to our national security is our debt, and that we can not be a friend to Israel if we compromise our own security.  He is both claiming Israel as friend and saying that we can no longer afford to spend on friends because it is endangering our own security.  He is making the argument that he is the strongest candidate on defense because he would stop the wars and spending that are weakening our ability to defend ourselves, but is assuring people that he is strong and unafraid to defend if attacked.  The best way to prevent war with Iran is to 1) stop our spending and empire building so that we will have the advantage of strength and 2) actually be in a position to do #1 and take power away from the neocons.  Rand didn't choose our current allies, but he would have no choice but to honor the commitments of the people of this nation.  It is not a president that declares war (or should), it is the people through their representatives.  Ultimately it is the people who choose their own allies.  Ron Paul has said time and again, that if the people chose to go to war (with Ron as president), he would act with strength, win the war, and come home.  This is exactly what Rand is saying, just with different rhetoric.  Rand is confirming his committment to honoring the right of the people, under the separation of powers, to choose their own allies.  He is also doing his best to get us out of the danger that we have put ourselves in at the same time.

----------


## Badger Paul

_" Rand didn't chose our current allies, but he would have no choice but to honor the commitments of the people of this nation."_

We have no commitment to defend Israel, period.

----------


## cheapseats

> any attack on Israel will be treated as an attack on the United States
> 
> ...entangling alliances is...a fairly core belief...



Whether to get INTO them or stay OUT of them, yes, it IS a core concept.

----------


## cheapseats

> I agree with what you imagine to be true...



(ASS | U | ME) X 2

----------


## dinosaur

> _" Rand didn't chose our current allies, but he would have no choice but to honor the commitments of the people of this nation."_
> 
> We have no commitment to defend Israel, period.


We only have that commitment if the people of this nation choose it.  The people, through their representatives, would have to vote for it in a Rand Paul presidency.  Rand would have no authority to stop them.

----------


## cheapseats

> ...the greatest embodiment of conservative politics I've ever witnessed.



I get that some people LOVE Rand unconditionally...trust him, give him the benefit of the doubt, yada yada.  Some DON'T.

I get that the "winning is everything" people not only don't CARE about alienating Ron Paul's hardcore base but kinda WANT to lose association with those "embarrassing" (impassioned & committed) activists.  But HYPERBOLE about Rand Paul is off-putting to Fence Sitters.  Word to unwise.

FOUR YEARS of hyperbolically pimping Rand is likelier to rekindle the passions of those OUTSIDE the Moovement who despise Paul the Elder than to win over those in the Moovement who are UNDERSTANDABLY looking askance at Paul the Younger.

----------


## dinosaur

> Whether to get INTO them or stay OUT of them, yes, it IS a core concept.


The separation of powers also gives the people, through their representatives, the right to decide if they want those alliances.  alliances = bad, constitution = good

----------


## belian78

> Speak for yourself.  Go vote for the Libertarian, then, if you don't like Rand.  But, you sure as hell don't speak for this movement.


You know what LE, you sure as hell don't either.  I used to respect you on this site, why I really don't know other than you are ALWAYS here giving your opinion, and I can't even remember you getting active in any of the projects member of this site have organized now that I think about it.  Anymore all you do is shout down anyone that resembles those of us who were around in the early days.  Principles be damned, if we aren't looking to put on a front to make nice with the machine, we are ignorant peons needing to be browbeat back into line.  The other posters are correct, I don't know if you're looking to work within the liberty movement so much as make the republican party palatable again.  I'm thinking Beck's boards or a part time job filling in with Levin might fit a little better for you.

----------


## iakobos

> We only have that commitment if the people of this nation choose it.  The people, through their representatives, would have to vote for it in a Rand Paul presidency.  Rand would have no authority to stop them.


Good point.  What Rand could have said, if he wanted to appease both sides of the issue is, "If Israel is attacked and if the United States House of Representatives passes a declaration of war against the attacking nation, then as President I would prosecute the war."  Neither side would be totally happy with that but it's a more Constitutional answer.  Instead of that we got typical neo-con blather about war no matter what.

I'm still suffering severe disappointment from Rand's statements.

----------


## itshappening

> Good point.  What Rand could have said, if he wanted to appease both sides of the issue is, "If Israel is attacked and if the United States House of Representatives passes a declaration of war against the attacking nation, then as President I would prosecute the war."  Neither side would be totally happy with that but it's a more Constitutional answer.  Instead of that we got typical neo-con blather about war no matter what.
> 
> I'm still suffering severe disappointment from Rand's statements.


He has said repeatedly no war without congress say so. 

They would obviously say yes if Israel got attacked

----------


## cheapseats

> We only have that commitment if the people of this nation choose it.  *The people, through their representatives, would have to vote for it* in a Rand Paul presidency.





> *The separation of powers also gives the people, through their representatives, the right to decide* if they want those alliances.  alliances = bad, constitution = good



Trotting out the THEORY of "representative government" would be LAUGHABLE, if any of this were funny.

----------


## dinosaur

> He has said repeatedly no war without congress say so.


Yes, and now he is saying he would execute a war, with strengh, on behalf of the american people, if those people chose it.  This is Ron's position also.

----------


## belian78

> He has said repeatedly no war without congress say so. 
> 
> They would obviously say yes if Israel got attacked


Keeping with the line of "An attack on Israel is an attack on the USA" will surely make it so as well.  This is the problem with making statements like this, he is keeping that mental 'must protect israel at all costs' circlejerk alive.  This is why I respected Ron so much, he didn't mince words, he is breaking the mental bondage.  Rand is using that mental bondage to 'try and infiltrate' but all he will do is lose himself in the process.

----------


## dinosaur

> Trotting out the THEORY of "representative government" would be LAUGHABLE, if any of this were funny.


Rand paul would not take the power to declare war upon himself.  Because of that he would restore that power to the people, at least while he was president.  That is not laughable.

----------


## dinosaur

> Rand is using that mental bondage to 'try and infiltrate' but all he will do is lose himself in the process.


Rand is using their own rhetoric against them, and giving their rhetoric an honest meaning.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Why should I, as person of principle and supporter of Ron Paul based upon his unequivocating principled positions, vote for Rand based upon the "theory" that what he is saying is not what he believes, but what he believes will garner him votes among the presumably easily duped Republican electorate?

----------


## belian78

> Rand is using their own rhetoric against them, and giving their rhetoric an honest meaning.


I would love to delude myself into believing that.  But what happens when time comes to put rubber to road persay?  If he doesn't back up his rhetoric with action, all the neocons and sociocons will abandon him.  If he does back up the rhetoric, well....  losing us liberty lovers will be the least of the issues stemming from those actions.  

I would personally rather have someone that is unflinching in both their principles and rhetoric, those are the men that I said I would protect with my life.  So far, there's only been one, Ron Paul.

----------


## dinosaur

> I would love to delude myself into believing that.  But what happens when time comes to put rubber to road persay?  If he doesn't back up his rhetoric with action, all the neocons and sociocons will abandon him.  If he does back up the rhetoric, well....  losing us liberty lovers will be the least of the issues stemming from those actions.  
> 
> I would personally rather have someone that is unflinching in both their principles and rhetoric, those are the men that I said I would protect with my life.  So far, there's only been one, Ron Paul.


Think about it: he can not, as president, declare war or choose which allies to defend.  He will back up his words, but he has never promised to declare an unconstitutional war.

----------


## belian78

> Think about it: he can not, as president, declare war or choose which allies to defend.  He will back up his words, but he has never promised to declare an unconstitutional war.


Really?  Obama has 4 years of new wars all over the place that would like a word with you.

----------


## cheapseats

> Rand paul would not take the power to declare war upon himself.  Because of that *he would restore that power to the people, at least while he was president.*  That is not laughable.



Just like that, eh?  Yeah, it IS laughable.

----------


## dinosaur

> Just like that, eh?  Yeah, it IS laughable.


Why?

----------


## dinosaur

> Really?  Obama has 4 years of new wars all over the place that would like a word with you.


Right, but Obama chose to take that power upon himself, even though it is unconstitutional.  Rand is arguing that it is wrong for Obama to do that.  As president, Rand would have the power to choose to obey the constitution.  If you think that Rand is lying, fine.  I have no reason to beleive that he lies.

----------


## cheapseats

> Why?



It is laughable to suppose that ANYONE is gonna sashay into the corner office and, poof, reverse the UNREPRESENTATIVE imperiousness of a CONGRESS GONE WILD. 

Anyone who imagines that Democrats will not try to obstruct Republicans at every turn...same as Republicans have tried to obstruct Obama...IS, indeed, imagining.

For Rand to "simply" DO what Supporters want him to do and think he will do, he'd have to resort to...you guessed it...EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

----------


## pcosmar

> Rand paul would not take the power to declare war upon himself.  Because of that he would restore that power to the people, at least while he was president.  That is not laughable.


You have a crystal ball? 

I had thought the same about Reagan. Even Bush said some good stuff.

And as much as I might hope so, Rand is not Ron.

And Ron would have never said something like Rand just did.

----------


## torchbearer

> It is laughable to suppose that ANYONE is gonna sashay into the corner office and, poof, reverse the UNREPRESENTATIVE imperiousness of a CONGRESS GONE WILD. 
> 
> Anyone who imagines that Democrats will not try to obstruct Republicans at every turn...same as Republicans have tried to obstruct Obama...IS, indeed, imagining.
> 
> For Rand to "simply" DO what Supporters want him to do and think he will do, he'd have to resort to...you guessed it...EXECUTIVE ORDERS.



I'd rather have those battles than to not have those battles and just sit at home and bitch.

----------


## dinosaur

> You have a crystal ball? 
> 
> I had thought the same about Reagan. Even Bush said some good stuff.
> 
> And as much as I might hope so, Rand is not Ron.
> 
> And Ron would have never said something like Rand just did.


Ron has said that he would execute a war that congress legally declared.  Ron has said that Israel is our friend.  The only difference that I see is in the rhetoric.  In my judgement, Rand is honest, and I'm pretty cynical when it comes to politicians.  People will have to make their own judgements about that, though.

----------


## cheapseats

> I'd rather have those battles than to not have those battles and just sit at home and bitch.



GETTING to those battles requires winning the General Election, not just the Republican Primary.

----------


## torchbearer

> GETTING to those battles requires winning the General Election, not just the Republican Primary.


every step is the battle.
some peeps here won't even bother to stand in the trenches as we go back into those conventions filled with armed men ready to beat us down.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> There is no way he is going to morph into an interventionist.  If he does, I will no longer support him.  But so far, all I've seen from Rand, is Rand using their own rhetoric and re-defining it.  It is actually very clever of him to use their own rhetoric against them...and to give it an honest meaning.  For example, supporting Israel now means that we support ther right to be independent of the US and to defend themselves. It also now means that we shouldn't undermine their efforts to protect themselves by occupying, arming, and training their enemies in the middle east. When the neocons say that they support Israel, they are really saying that they support the endless stupid wars in the middle east that benefit neither Amercia, nor Great Britain, nor Israel...but that is not Rand's definition of supporting Israel.  When neocons say that we must defend Israel, what they really mean is that we should attack Iran to finish the bankster wars...not Rand's definition either.


And for the life of me I can't understand why some people can't see this unless they are hell bent on being a fringe saboteur, in which case, they become the enemy of the political liberty movement. You're basically saying, "Hey Ron, you're son is a POS and is on par with Dick Cheney." Way to give thx to all Ron has done for liberty to cast aside his ideologically close son because you refuse to allow him to speak in different lingo because it upsets your stomach. Get f'd

----------


## cheapseats

> I'd rather have those battles than to not have those battles and *just sit at home and bitch.*



I seriously hope that longtime activist you are not falling back on the self-serving suggestion that anyone who is not onboard with ONE FACTION'S agenda is doing nothing.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

Turning ugly. But I guess it is better to get this ugliness out now than for it to come out later.

Sooooo. Can someone point out someone better for 2016? Anyone??? Can anyone suggest someone other than Rand for 2016? Heck, possibly 2020? Someone who is like Ron and has a chance of even getting the nomination. With the current pool of politicians, its not that great of a pool to choose from. There are some junior politicians, but they'll take a while to blossom and to get name recognition.

----------


## torchbearer

> I seriously hope that longtime activist you are not falling back on the self-serving suggestion that anyone who is not onboard with ONE FACTION'S agenda is doing nothing.


There is a battle, you recognize it. its the only one going on...
what will you be doing?
I suspect there will be those who just bitch the whole time.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

> I imagine Rand meant that the U.S would come to Israel's defense if another country launched a full scale invasion into Israel, but he should've been more clear.  I hope that he actually listens to people's concerns and clears this issue up.


Just like Ron, where he doesn't really clear things up with foreign policy and medicare/SS. I recall people trying to get in contact with doug wead or someone that has direct link to Ron to ask Ron to be much more clear and explain his FP and medicare/SS better at debates or national TV. There are times where Ron sounds like he wants to end social security and medicare for the elderly in the 1 trillion dollar cut. Shouldve said "Ron will cut 1 trillion dollar year one to save SS and medicare". To be fair, there are times when he say he wants a slow transition of 10-20 years before ending SS/medicare. But he doesn't say it enough.

----------


## cheapseats

> Turning ugly. But I guess it is better to get this ugliness out now than for it to come out later.


Rand is CLEARLY posturing for a presidential bid.  Okay, KNOWN.  Howzabout the Liberty Moovement bears that knowledge in mind as it proceeds with its (snail's pace) effort to restore some Liberty and infuse some Justice into this embarrassingly BROKEN "System"?

If people spend FOUR YEARS pimping him and he doesn't win, then spend four MORE years pimping him for 2020 or EIGHT more years pimping him for 2024, he will become stigmatized as ALWAYS running for president...like Mitt Romney. 





> Sooooo. Can someone point out someone better for 2016? Anyone??? Can anyone suggest someone other than Rand for 2016? Heck, possibly 2020? Someone who is like Ron and has a chance of even getting the nomination. With the current pool of politicians, its not that great of a pool to choose from. There are some junior politicians, but they'll take a while to blossom and to get name recognition.


If Rand Paul gets run over by a bus, that's IT...all is lost?  Are "we" again pinning salvation on a Messiah?

----------


## twomp

If Rand Paul is the current figure of the Liberty movement, if the Liberty movement stands for the defense of Israel then the Liberty movement has been co-opted. We defend NO ONE BUT THE USA!

----------


## iakobos

> Good point.  What Rand could have said, if he wanted to appease both sides of the issue is, "If Israel is attacked and if the United States House of Representatives passes a declaration of war against the attacking nation, then as President I would prosecute the war."  Neither side would be totally happy with that but it's a more Constitutional answer.  Instead of that we got typical neo-con blather about war no matter what.
> 
> I'm still suffering severe disappointment from Rand's statements.





> He has said repeatedly no war without congress say so. 
> 
> They would obviously say yes if Israel got attacked


The issue, though, is not whether Rand would only go to war with a Congressional declaration, but that he would apparently lead the charge to get that declaration.  What I'm getting at is he doesn't think like I and his Dad do about the subject of repudiating all foreign military entanglements.  It's obvious his statements will court the typical Republican go to war at all costs, especially if it's Israel, mentality.  The words I put in his mouth are my words, obviously, but are meant to illustrate that someone who thinks as I do could deflect the issue by pointing to Constitutionality issues without necessarily giving a blanket statement of support or no support for war on Israel's behalf.  I'm trying to be helpful here because I understand how knee jerk pro-war Republicans are when it comes to all things Middle East.  And I perceive the need for any 'Libertarian' candidate to therefore handle the matter delicately. 

Instead we got an openly pro-war statement.  I find his pro-war views very disappointing.

----------


## dskalkowski

> If Rand Paul is the current figure of the Liberty movement, if the Liberty movement stands for the defense of Israel then the Liberty movement has been co-opted. We defend NO ONE BUT THE USA!


You actually  think Israel is going to get attacked?

----------


## cheapseats

> You actually  think Israel is going to get attacked?



Do you think Israel would never PROVOKE an attack, resting assured of backup from the mighty American Military (and Taxpayer)?

----------


## twomp

> You actually  think Israel is going to get attacked?


You mean you don't? Have you not heard Netanyahu (that the current leader of Israel) declare that he will not allow Iran to have a nuclear bomb? Israel has already bombed Syria's nuclear plant. You don't think they will do so to Iran? Do you not think Iran will retaliate?

----------


## deadfish

Incredible that so many on RPF would rather have a Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton type person as POTUS instead of Rand Paul.

How... Why... Isn't that just stupid?

----------


## twomp

> Incredible that so many on RPF would rather have a Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton type person as POTUS instead of Rand Paul.
> 
> How... Why... Isn't that just stupid?


Really? Please point to me where someone said that. Nice try at spinning peoples words though.

----------


## torchbearer

> Incredible that so many on RPF would rather have a Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton type person as POTUS instead of Rand Paul.
> 
> How... Why... Isn't that just stupid?


they are that stupid.
we had this strand of stupid in the LP and it held us back at every turn.

----------


## iakobos

> Incredible that so many on RPF would rather have a Barack Obama / Hillary Clinton type person as POTUS instead of Rand Paul.
> 
> How... Why... Isn't that just stupid?


Incredible that someone would rather have Rand Paul than Ron Paul.
How... Why... Isn't that just stupid?

Now go troll somewhere else.

----------


## Lucille

Rand Paul’s Unnecessary Security Guarantee
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ity-guarantee/




> ...In fact, Sen. Paul went a little beyond that and said that the U.S. should publicly “announce to the world” that an attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the United States. There are several things wrong with this idea. First, it isn’t a true reflection of what U.S. policy has been and what it presumably will be in the future. The U.S. has no formal defense obligation to Israel, and attacks on Israel have never been treated as attacks on the United States. Especially because of the strains on our military and our current fiscal woes, it doesn’t make any sense for the U.S. to extend yet another security guarantee to a prospering client state that can already provide for its own defense. The U.S. needs to reduce allied and client dependency on the U.S. We certainly shouldn’t be adding any new security guarantees.
> 
> More to the point, making this announcement would be unnecessary. Israel has the most powerful military in the region, and it possesses its own nuclear deterrent. No state that would be deterred by such an announcement is going to launch an attack on Israel, because it is already deterred from doing so by Israel’s military arsenal. Those militias and groups that are still willing to launch strikes on Israel would still be willing to do so after such an announcement. The only things that this announcement would achieve would be to link the U.S. even more closely with Israel in the eyes of the world and potentially to make Americans targets of these groups.
> 
> If the U.S. made such an announcement and followed through on it the next time there is a conflict between Israel and Hizbullah, for example, the U.S. would be committing itself to involvement in a conflict in Lebanon that serves no discernible U.S. interest. If the U.S. makes the announcement and then doesn’t honor the guarantee being made, other U.S. security guarantees that may be necessary elsewhere in the world could be undermined. The worst-case scenario is that providing such a guarantee to Israel could make a future Israeli government more aggressive in its behavior towards one of its neighbors, and that could end up pulling the U.S. into a war that it wasn’t seeking and shouldn’t be fighting.

----------


## deadfish

> Really? Please point to me where someone said that. Nice try at spinning peoples words though.


Not much difference between Romney and Obama. Significant different between Rand Paul and everyone else. I've watched too many hours of Rand Paul's speeches and filibusters to be convinced otherwise. Just as an example, who else has watched all 1.75 hours from his speeches/filibustering on 9/21/12?

Also note that my nobody ever brings up *the worst legislation* (imo) that Rand Paul every pushed and continues to support rhetorically. He introduced legislation to ban abortion, and in a really dumb way too. Do people not know this or what? After some deep-thought, and some soul searching, and that video by G. Edward Griffin, I decided that I would still support Rand because I have faith that he wants to destroy the ring of power. I feel that faith is justified in the nuances that you pick up on when watching him speak... and by Ron Paul standing at his side.




> Incredible that someone would rather have Rand Paul than Ron Paul.
> How... Why... Isn't that just stupid?
> 
> Now go troll somewhere else.


Unfortunately, I feel Ron Paul did not want to win. If I could take back every dollar I donated, I would. It was no small sum. Instead, I would have invested primarily in Liberty For All and saved for smaller races. Doesn't change the fact that Ron changed my life and inspired my passion for politics. Sorry, but I was not a happy camper about being mislead.

At the end of the day, I have a goal. *Taking control of the positions of power.* I believed that if Ron was president, we would be better off. I believe that to be true with Rand. Maybe I will be wrong about Rand's intentions like I was about Ron's, but I will be more more cautious when Rand's money bombs begin. Big difference than trying to suck the wind out of his sails like so many on RPF.

As petty as it is, a big landmark will be whether Rand's campaign hires Benton or not. If he does, it's going to be really hard to donate.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> Turning ugly. But I guess it is better to get this ugliness out now than for it to come out later.
> 
> Sooooo. Can someone point out someone better for 2016? Anyone??? Can anyone suggest someone other than Rand for 2016? Heck, possibly 2020? Someone who is like Ron and has a chance of even getting the nomination. With the current pool of politicians, its not that great of a pool to choose from. There are some junior politicians, but they'll take a while to blossom and to get name recognition.


GARRRY!!...  but no, I can't think of anyone with a chance.

----------


## fj45lvr

Ron is a libertarian and Rand is not, which is why he can stand beside a horrific state such as Israel while they systematically steal while pointing guns at the heads of their victims...

if anybody is dumb enough to believe that rand is going to "fool" the oppressors into backing him they are delusional.    They are getting a laugh at Paul pissing on liberty before they kick him to the curb....

----------


## belian78

> Ron is a libertarian and Rand is not, which is why he can stand beside a horrific state such as Israel while they systematically steal while pointing guns at the heads of their victims...
> 
> if anybody is dumb enough to believe that rand is going to "fool" the oppressors into backing him they are delusional.    They are getting a laugh at Paul pissing on liberty before they kick him to the curb....


Unfortunately this is what I see happening as well.

----------


## Agorism

Wonder if the Ron Paul supporters in Alaska are going to bother showing up at this point to take the chairmanship next month. Rand is sabotaging the movement.

Not saying it's not in their best interest to do so, but I think a lot of people are going to lack enthusiasm at this point. But so long as Glen Beck is backing you, that should be enough.

----------


## sailingaway

People need to find motivation in something else then.  Look at the states we've taken or almost taken.  Look at, if not winning, Priebus having to fly around the country making concessions to keep his job.  The R3VOLution is worth fighting for, even if we are just getting in place so that if the *next* Ron Paul appears he has a party to push him rather than cheat him.  We can't change the world sitting still.

The r3VOLution isn't about who is running for President, necessarily, it is about us.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Wonder if the Ron Paul supporters in Alaska are going to bother showing up at this point to take the chairmanship next month. Rand is sabotaging the movement.
> 
> Not saying it's not in their best interest to do so, but I think a lot of people are going to lack enthusiasm at this point. But so long as Glen Beck is backing you, that should be enough.


If their enthusiasm is contingent upon having some figurehead to rally around (such as Rand Paul - or even Ron Paul), then it was never going to amount to anything anyway - so what would it matter?

_Führerprinzip_ has no place in the liberty movement.

----------


## sailingaway

> If their enthusiasm is contingent upon having some figurehead to rally around (such as Rand Paul - or even Ron Paul), then it was never going to amount to anything anyway - so what would it matter?
> 
> _Führerprinzip_ has no place in the liberty movement.


Joe Miller is pushing events up there at the moment.

----------


## Dystopian

If he walks like a neocon
and talks like a neocon
then he might be a....

Seriously, if he really said these comments, then why should he not be considered a neocon?  Maybe he should move to Israel if he loves it so much.

----------


## LibertyEagle

^^^
If he walks like a troll
and talks like a troll
then he probably is a troll

A perusal of your posts since you have joined, is quite interesting.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Do you think Israel would never PROVOKE an attack, resting assured of backup from the mighty American Military (and Taxpayer)?


They provoke attacks all the time, but the people they provoke luckily are smart enough to know that if they attacked Israel that their country would be toast.

----------


## cheapseats

> They provoke attacks all the time...


Something Rand Paul should bear in mind when he proposes to broadcast to the globe that "ANY ATTACK ON ISRAEL IS AN ATTACK ON US."





> ...but the people they provoke luckily are smart enough to know that if they attacked Israel that their country would be toast.


Then "we" don't need to be offering blank-check, no-questions-asked backup.

What happens if hyper-sensitive, perpetual-victim Israel slaps the ATTACK label on the "usual" rockets from Gaza and seeks U.S. involvement?

----------


## Dystopian

> A perusal of your posts since you have joined, is quite interesting.



Unlike yours

----------


## klamath

> ^^^
> If he walks like a troll
> and talks like a troll
> then he probably is a troll
> 
> A perusal of your posts since you have joined, is quite interesting.


Don't feed it. It wants attention, so bad.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Seriously, if he really said these comments, then why should he not be considered a neocon?


Perhaps because neo-conservatives are war-mongering leftish Republicans who are the intellectual descendants of ex-Trotskyites - something that Rand Paul obviously is not.

Of course, that would also require that people who run around hissing "OMG! Neo-con! Neo-con!" at everyone who says something they don't like would have to actually learn the meanings of the words they use.

Apparently, though, this would be asking too much ...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:
> 
> They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.
> They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.
> They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.
> They accept the notion that the ends justify the means  that hard-ball politics is a moral necessity.
> They express no opposition to the welfare state.
> They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.
> They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.
> ...



read the rest....

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> if anybody is dumb enough to believe that rand is going to "fool" the oppressors into backing him they are delusional.    They are getting a laugh at Paul pissing on liberty before they kick him to the curb....


The point is not to fool the oppressors, it's to make his message palatable to mainstream conservatives so that he can pull them further into a liberty mindset. Unfortunately, deflecting non-interventionist foreign policy demagoguery by standing strong with Israel will allow him to make better inroads in promoting non-interventionism in general. I mean, he's on record stating that aid must stop to all at some point and I'm confident that once the rug is pulled on the hostile countries then it won't be too long afterwards that it only makes sense to end Israel's goodies to balance things out. Rand won't be able to single-handedly end aid on his own, it's to get the ball rolling in that direction so that support for reversing our overseas policies can bare fruit. Rand is hustling libertarianism to conservatives in the most innovative way in this day and age. If his language got too extreme too soon he'll cut off his nose to spite his face and lose all future progress.

----------


## itshappening

> read the rest....


Once again Ron Paul shows us the way.  The 2003 Neoconned speech was one of his classics and will be remembered for years to come.

No wonder Krauthammer wants to disown the term.

----------


## cheapseats

Top of Drudge: ATTACK ON SYRIA IS ATTACK ON IRAN

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-26-14-55-01

And THAT is how $#@! escalates.

----------


## Matt Collins

*

Did any of you also happen to notice Rand's -*




-Anti-war grilling of Kerry?

-Bringing up unconstitutional war in Libya?

-Bringing up foreign aid while in Israel?

-Being on TV against drone use this week?

-Getting FOX to cover, ad naseum, not selling arms to Egypt from OUR point of views?

-Pushing foreign aid cuts to Pakistan again to Kerry?
_
-Being the sole vote against Iranian containment language?_


Just saying, put in context and perspective, his recent comments about  Israel are not as big of a deal as everyone's making them out to be.

----------


## cheapseats

> Just saying, put in context and perspective, his recent comments about  Israel are not as big of a deal as everyone's making them out to be.



His recent statement..."An attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S."...obviously IS a big deal to some, or this would not be a 25-page thread.

Whether It is or is not a big deal, YOU are an unapologetic defender of a "Political Process" that is better known as THE BROKEN SYSTEM.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> They provoke attacks all the time, but the people they provoke luckily are smart enough to know that if they attacked Israel that their country would be toast.


And this does not bother you?

----------


## NOVALibertarian

I thought people here would know by now not to believe anything a politician says?

Yet some of you are taking Rand's words at face value?

Ok.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

I'm a saboteur if I'm troubled by Rand's comments?

I'll tell you what - you can have this movement, then.  What made this movement special was Ron's principled, unwavering positions, and the people who were inspired by him and those positions.  Ron was in the most meaningful ways above this kind of politics.  

He did so much more good in not winning that way than Rand could possibly do in winning this way.  

Enjoy wallowing in the slop with the likes of Benton and the rest of the GOP trash.

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm a saboteur if I'm troubled by Rand's comments?
> 
> I'll tell you what - you can have this movement, then.  What made this movement special was Ron's principled, unwavering positions, and the people who were inspired by him and those positions.  Ron was in the most meaningful ways above this kind of politics.


Some may want to do things one way but I think you will find a lot of like minded people to continue a different path.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Some may want to do things one way but I think you will find a lot of like minded people to continue a different path.


I'm more than a little annoyed to read that I'm apparently an idiot because I can't decipher the complex coded language Rand is using... it seems taking apparent pro-imperial foreign policy stances "really" means that he isn't pro-imperial foreign policy?  Sorry - I cut my teeth with a politician who said what he meant, and meant what he said.

But I'm especially tired - almost done - with these people running around this forum telling people like me that we're "saboteurs".  Quite frankly, whatever Rand's comments may actually mean, this movement _was_ about principle.  So if Rand is playing games, and people are on board with that, THEY'RE THE SABOTEURS.  And they can "get f'd" (as I've seen them suggest, to us).

----------


## sailingaway

> I'm more than a little annoyed to read that I'm apparently an idiot because I can't decipher the complex coded language Rand is using... it seems taking apparent pro-imperial foreign policy stances "really" means that he isn't pro-imperial foreign policy?  Sorry - I cut my teeth with a politician who said what he meant, and meant what he said.
> 
> But I'm especially tired - almost done - with these people running around this forum telling people like me that we're "saboteurs".  Quite frankly, whatever Rand's comments may actually mean, this movement _was_ about principle.  So if Rand is playing games, and people are on board with that, THEY'RE THE SABOTEURS.  And they can "get f'd" (as I've seen them suggest, to us).


I'm for principles.

----------


## TheTyke

Whenever these flareups occur, chiefly when one of our candidates starts gaining too much ground, it is prompted by media stories (or in this case, an abruptly ended quote from a video.) It is then pushed by people who either love a big argument or are trying to divide the movement (in this case, Agorism.) Then, as people debate them, even sincere and good people get caught up in the arguments. But yes, there are saboteurs. Any political movement threatened by us would be wise to employ them. It's basic strategy.

It's important to realize where these "controversies" come from, and how we get directed into blasting our own while not even mentioning (or knowing the names of) hundreds who are far more opposed to our principles and work against them on a daily basis.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm more than a little annoyed to read that I'm apparently an idiot because I can't decipher the complex coded language Rand is using... it seems taking apparent pro-imperial foreign policy stances "really" means that he isn't pro-imperial foreign policy?  Sorry - I cut my teeth with a politician who said what he meant, and meant what he said.
> 
> But I'm especially tired - almost done - with these people running around this forum telling people like me that we're "saboteurs".  Quite frankly, whatever Rand's comments may actually mean, this movement _was_ about principle.  So if Rand is playing games, and people are on board with that, THEY'RE THE SABOTEURS.  And they can "get f'd" (as I've seen them suggest, to us).


I owe you another +rep   *applause!!*

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Whenever these flareups occur, chiefly when one of our candidates starts gaining too much ground, it is prompted by media stories (or in this case, an abruptly ended quote from a video.) It is then pushed by people who either love a big argument or are trying to divide the movement (in this case, Agorism.) Then, as people debate them, even sincere and good people get caught up in the arguments. But yes, there are saboteurs. Any political movement threatened by us would be wise to employ them. It's basic strategy.
> 
> It's important to realize where these "controversies" come from, and how we get directed into blasting our own while not even mentioning (or knowing the names of) hundreds who are far more opposed to our principles and work against them on a daily basis.


Rand himself is dividing the movement, because "the movement" largely came into existence as a consequence of the principled positions of his father.  The theory is, apparently, that he is looking to garner a wider base of support amongst GOP voters by saying things like this, but we members of the movement are supposed to be savvy enough to "read between the lines" and either know or have faith that in his heart he's just as principled as Ron is.  

THAT is how you divide a movement.

----------


## Matt Collins

> The theory is, apparently, that he is looking to garner a wider base of support amongst GOP voters by saying things like this, but we members of the movement are supposed to be savvy enough to "read between the lines" and either know or have faith that in his heart he's just as principled as Ron is.


And it's sad to see how many people in our movement are unable to grasp this concept. We tend to be independent thinkers but yet a lot of people around here seem to be incapable of thinking for themselves on this sort of thing. Aren't we, as a movement, smarter than the people often referred to as "sheeple"? Can't we understand the difference between rhetoric and action?

----------


## sailingaway

> And it's sad to see how many people in our movement are unable to grasp this concept. We tend to be independent thinkers but yet a lot of people around here seem to be incapable of thinking for themselves on this sort of thing. Aren't we, as a movement, smarter than the people often referred to as "sheeple"? Can't we understand the difference between rhetoric and action?


People ARE thinking for themselves, Matt. This is what that looks like.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> And it's sad to see how many people in our movement are unable to grasp this concept. We tend to be independent thinkers but yet a lot of people around here seem to be incapable of thinking for themselves on this sort of thing. Aren't we, as a movement, smarter than the people often referred to as "sheeple"? Can't we understand the difference between rhetoric and action?


I don't know Rand, Matt.  Just like with his father, I only know him by what he has said.  We think for ourselves based upon the information available to us.  

Ron Paul was the first politician to whom I ever gave of my time, effort and money.  It's true that there is a difference between rhetoric and action, but what made Ron a special politician was that what he _said_ in that capacity was entirely outside of the approved spectrum (to borrow Tom Woods' phrase), and it lent credibility to him as a consequence.  Rand, on the other hand, seems to be staying within the approved spectrum, to a significant extent.  That's fine.  But I, as a person who became a part of this movement because of Ron's principled positions, won't be giving to him as I did to Ron because to me he lacks credibility and - based upon what I hear him say - principle.  I simply can't take that chance.  It means far too much to me.

----------


## iakobos

> I don't know Rand, Matt.  Just like with his father, I only know him by what he has said.  We think for ourselves based upon the information available to us.  
> 
> Ron Paul was the first politician to whom I ever gave of my time, effort and money.  It's true that there is a difference between rhetoric and action, but what made Ron a special politician was that what he _said_ in that capacity was entirely outside of the approved spectrum (to borrow Tom Woods' phrase), and it lent credibility to him as a consequence.  Rand, on the other hand, seems to be staying within the approved spectrum, to a significant extent.  That's fine.  But I, as a person who became a part of this movement because of Ron's principled positions, won't be giving to him as I did to Ron because to me he lacks credibility and - based upon what I hear him say - principle.  I simply can't take that chance.  It means far too much to me.


x2

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I thought people here would know by now not to believe anything a politician says?
> 
> Yet some of you are taking Rand's words at face value?
> 
> Ok.


Well, that is one of the problems with political system. I wouldn't bask in the fact that all politicians lie and/or double speak. It is a moot point. Also, it's pretty astounding that you would question why I would take Rand's words at face value.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> And it's sad to see how many people in our movement are unable to grasp this concept. We tend to be independent thinkers but yet *a lot of people around here seem to be incapable of thinking for themselves on this sort of thing.* Aren't we, as a movement, smarter than the people often referred to as "sheeple"? Can't we understand the difference between rhetoric and action?


Lmao. The irony is killing me.

----------


## paulbot24

When you consider who we are suffering under now and what the Democrat  Party has begun grooming and polishing for 2016, and combine that with  names from the GOPs junk lot like Rubio and Christie it sounds  nauseating. Now when you consider Ron Paul's son, the boy he taught  Austrian Economics to at 11 years old, learning values and principles  from Ron(!), the boy that listened to Ron's advice and musings on the  world and life growing up, to become a man and enter his father's  profession in the Senate. Look at how closely Rand's policies are to  Ron's. They are both men, men with different minds but with certainly  much more they agree on than disagree. Revisit youtube and watch  some of Rand's speeches again and you will hear Ron in some of Rand's  speeches. I know I do. It's almost eerie until you remember who he is.  Ron would never want to raise a man that just deferred to him, content  to trade on his name, or some repeating duplicate of himself. There will  never be another Ron fighting for us on Capitol Hill, which makes all  of us sad. The great ones are rare, and if you're like me, you feel  fortunate to have been around at the same time to meet one. That is one  of the reasons why they are so great. There will never be another Ron  Paul. There can never be another Ron Paul. We wouldn't actually want  another Ron. I want somebody I can admire like Ron, a student of Ron, as  close as I can get to another Ron. Who better than his own son who is  following in his footsteps? Those are some damn difficult footsteps to  follow. How would you like to try to follow in those footsteps?  We would be wise in remembering that as we watch and give our opinions of his son, who happens to be the only one even attempting that to fill those shoes. If we have  the opportunity to support Rand, a student in the school of all that is  Ron, as a candidate for President in 2016, isn't that an  exciting to think about?

----------


## A Son of Liberty

That may well be.  On the other hand, it may be that Rand is his own man, distinct from his father, and ambitious, and does not value the same things that Ron does, or to the degree that he does, and I might actually vote for someone who really does believe these things that he has been saying.

Again, I'm not willing to take that chance.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Whenever these flareups occur, chiefly when one of our candidates starts gaining too much ground, it is prompted by media stories (or in this case, an abruptly ended quote from a video.) It is then pushed by people who either love a big argument or are trying to divide the movement (in this case, Agorism.) Then, as people debate them, even sincere and good people get caught up in the arguments. But yes, there are saboteurs. Any political movement threatened by us would be wise to employ them. It's basic strategy.
> 
> It's important to realize where these "controversies" come from, and how we get directed into blasting our own while not even mentioning (or knowing the names of) hundreds who are far more opposed to our principles and work against them on a daily basis.


Agreed.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> And this does not bother you?


Sure it does.  What does that have to do with what we are discussing?

----------


## Intoxiklown

> He said. 
> "an attack on Israel is an attack of the US"
> 
> $#@! that, and him.
> 
> That is Traitorous.
> Israel is instigating $#@! all on their own and should have been cut off long ago.



May I remind you of Ronald Reagan (his faults aside)? He supported Israel this way, but flew off the $#@!ing handle when they attacked someone, and wanted to sanction the hell out of them because they took a defensive understanding (if YOU attack Israel, YOU attack us), and used it for offense?

If you jumped on my brother, we're going to both beat you without mercy until you'll be lucky to be able to speak right in 6 months. But, there has been more than one incident where he started a fight, and I let him tote an ass whupping.  Why? Because he started it. I understand the intent of the framers about alliances, but some people are taking this statement way out of context and really running with it I think,

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I'm more than a little annoyed to read that I'm apparently an idiot because I can't decipher the complex coded language Rand is using... it seems taking apparent pro-imperial foreign policy stances "really" means that he isn't pro-imperial foreign policy?  Sorry - I cut my teeth with a politician who said what he meant, and meant what he said.


Well, yes and no.  A whole lot of people in this movement are still screwed up about Ron's viewpoints on abortion, drugs, and gay marriage.  Ron could have made it crystal clear, but he didn't.  Why do you think that was?

When Ron ran for Congress and the multitude of reelections, he didn't talk like he did when he ran for President.  He was all about education when he ran for President; when he ran for Congress he was trying to win.




> But I'm especially tired - almost done - with these people running around this forum telling people like me that we're "saboteurs".  Quite frankly, whatever Rand's comments may actually mean, this movement _was_ about principle.  So if Rand is playing games, and people are on board with that, THEY'RE THE SABOTEURS.  And they can "get f'd" (as I've seen them suggest, to us).


Do you honestly believe that it is possible to go from where we are now to utopian perfection, all in one swoop?   For one, it scares the crap out of people and two, it would be almost impossible.  Even Ron wouldn't have ended the FED overnight.  He knew that it couldn't happen.

Ron scared a lot of people, because he often didn't connect the dots.  Like when he often talked about closing ALL of the bases.  It made him appear as weak on national defense, not cognizant of the fact that there really are some bad guys out there and he didn't paint a picture for people as to how he would defend the country.  Add to that talking about ending the CIA, the EPA, Dept. of Commerce, etc, without explaining why that would be beneficial to them and that some of the functions would be either be put in other federal agencies, or handed over to the states and especially painting a picture of how things would work without them.  If this kind of thing isn't done, it is great fodder for making him look like a crackpot.

In my opinion, Rand recognizes this and instead of being relegated to the sidelines as a crackpot, he is pretty masterfully walking Republicans down pretty much the same path as Ron.  But with Rand, Republicans are starting to walk with him and agree.  

Some here want Rand to do things exactly like Ron.  He's not Ron; he is his own individual.  And to me, that's a good thing.  Ron can focus on purity through education and Rand is an implementer.

We didn't get in this mess overnight and we're not getting out of it overnight.  I realize that is hard to face, but that is just reality.

----------


## compromise

LibertyEagle is right - look at Rand's Facebook. He made a post about him talking to John Kerry about non-interventionism and it got a ton of supportive comments from middle-aged looking mainstream Republicans. Rubio is right too when he says most of his constituents disagree with him - most Americans of both parties strongly opposed intervention in Libya.

----------


## dbill27

I'm not sure why some of us are trying to spin Rand's comments or pretending that what he said was ok. Israel is not the 51st state. While I might care personally about Israel, I would not dream of sending our soldiers to die for a country that they did not sign up to defend. 

I support Rand, he understands the things I understand about economics. He understands the danger of government. But let's not pretend he was right about this, doing so would be dangerous and would be a sell out of everything that we are.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I'm not sure why some of us are trying to spin Rand's comments or pretending that what he said was ok. Israel is not the 51st state. While I might care personally about Israel, I would not dream of sending our soldiers to die for a country that they did not sign up to defend. 
> 
> I support Rand, he understands the things I understand about economics. He understands the danger of government. But let's not pretend he was right about this, doing so would be dangerous and would be a sell out of everything that we are.


+rep, and that is what burns the hell out of me as well.  

I sincerely haven't made my mind up about Rand, and he makes it hard for me to do so.  He does good things, and then he follows that up with some stupid rhetoric.  People here say "don't listen to the rhetoric, watch his actions."  Sure, actions speak louder than words, but those of us in the Liberty Movement *shouldn't be giving him a pass when he says these things! * Stop being afraid to call him out on it just because he's Ron Paul's son!!  

If Rubio or Santorum had said this about Israel, we would be all over it like gravy on rice...and rightly so!!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> ...


I never once struggled to understand where Ron stood on some issue.  When he said that, as president, he would execute a war that Congress constitutionally authorized, I got it, even if _morally_ I wouldn't agree with it.  When he said that abortion was a states issue, I got it.  When he said that he wouldn't immediately end unconstitutional programs like SS, Medicaid, etc., because people had become dependent upon them through the social paradigm, I got it.  

Ron explained himself rather clearly in terms of his philosophical beliefs and his responsibilities in government.  I appreciated that.

Rand has made some statements that have given me pause.  I consider a vote to be a very powerful, important thing, and I don't just give it to anyone.  As I've said, maybe Rand is playing a political game.  THAT'S FINE, but I'm not going to give him the same kind of support that I gave Ron - probably not any at all, frankly - because all I know of Rand is what he says, just as I know Ron by what he says, and I'm not comfortable with some of the things he's said.  That is my right, LE.  

Don't call me and those of us who are troubled by some of the things he's said saboteurs to the movement.  If it weren't for US, there wouldn't be a "movement".  You people can play all your little political games and wallow in the muck with the dregs of the GOP.  Those of us who were about principles don't care to; but understand that movements aren't born out of strictly political campaigns.  "Movements" are about getting behind IDEAS.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> I never once struggled to understand where Ron stood on some issue.  When he said that, as president, he would execute a war that Congress constitutionally authorized, I got it, even if _morally_ I wouldn't agree with it.  When he said that abortion was a states issue, I got it.  When he said that he wouldn't immediately end unconstitutional programs like SS, Medicaid, etc., because people had become dependent upon them through the social paradigm, I got it.  
> 
> Ron explained himself rather clearly in terms of his philosophical beliefs and his responsibilities in government.  I appreciated that.
> 
> Rand has made some statements that have given me pause.  I consider a vote to be a very powerful, important thing, and I don't just give it to anyone.  As I've said, maybe Rand is playing a political game.  THAT'S FINE, but I'm not going to give him the same kind of support that I gave Ron - probably not any at all, frankly - because all I know of Rand is what he says, just as I know Ron by what he says, and I'm not comfortable with some of the things he's said.  That is my right, LE.  
> 
> Don't call me and those of us who are troubled by some of the things he's said saboteurs to the movement.  If it weren't for US, there wouldn't be a "movement".  You people can play all your little political games and wallow in the muck with the dregs of the GOP.  Those of us who were about principles don't care to; but understand that movements aren't born out of strictly political campaigns.  "Movements" are about getting behind IDEAS.


I would love to give you 1000 +reps for this post!

----------


## itshappening

> +rep, and that is what burns the hell out of me as well.  
> 
> I sincerely haven't made my mind up about Rand, and he makes it hard for me to do so.  He does good things, and then he follows that up with some stupid rhetoric.  People here say "don't listen to the rhetoric, watch his actions."  Sure, actions speak louder than words, but those of us in the Liberty Movement *shouldn't be giving him a pass when he says these things! * Stop being afraid to call him out on it just because he's Ron Paul's son!!  
> 
> If Rubio or Santorum had said this about Israel, we would be all over it like gravy on rice...and rightly so!!



Rand is the best we're going to get, if you vote LP instead of him then you're no better than the 5% or so who vote LP in Justin Amash's district which could cost him his seat in congress if it were a closer election.  

I can't understand the absolutist puritans who would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Rand is the best we're going to get, if you vote LP instead of him then you're no better than the 5% or so who vote LP in Justin Amash's district which could cost him his seat in congress if it were a closer election.  
> 
> I can't understand the absolutist puritans who would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.


To us, principles matter.  I don't make deals with devils.  Yes, I'd rather suffer under a dictatorship than to have to answer to God for throwing my support behind a politician who may do horrible, immoral things with that support.

I never once worried that my vote for Ron might result in dead brown kids.  I'd rather cut off my nose than be guilty of giving sanction to violence.  It's bad enough I'm taxed for it; I'll be DAMNED if I'll put my support behind it.

----------


## pcosmar

> May I remind you of Ronald Reagan (his faults aside)?


You can, but he was also compromised.
either buy the bullets fired by his CIA director VPs friend,,or by deteriorating mental condition.

Reagan was full of contradictions.

I was once an Israel Firster,, and had been taught that bull$#@! about Israel being Gods State on earth.
It took a Jewish friend to show me that Zionism and Judaism were both contradictory and incompatible.

Further study has convinced me that it is one of the greatest evils facing the world today.
We *NEED* to disassociate ourselves from it. Not pander to it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand is the best we're going to get, if you vote LP instead of him then you're no better than the 5% or so who vote LP in Justin Amash's district which could cost him his seat in congress if it were a closer election.  
> 
> I can't understand the absolutist puritans who would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.


If I vote LP, it's because their candidate represents my principles better than anyone else on the ballot.  I don't vote for the guy who can win, or the lesser of two evils....I'm not voting as part of a collective either.  I'm  done with that.  It's my vote and it must be earned by the person who gets it.  If no one earns it, that's fine too.   It's all about principles for me now, and I have Ron Paul to thank for that.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to cajuncocoa again.

:thumbs:

----------


## Matt Collins

> won't be giving to him as I did to Ron because to me he lacks credibility


You should look up his voting record some time

----------


## angelatc

> People ARE thinking for themselves, Matt. This is what that looks like.


I love the way his use of the word "we" implies that "we" should all, independently, think exactly the same way on this topic.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You should look up his voting record some time


Read what I've said here, Matt.  And stuff the eye-rolls.  

Public comments suggest future votes.  It's perfectly justified for one to question where his philosophy lies.

----------


## angelatc

> Rand is the best we're going to get, if you vote LP instead of him then you're no better than the 5% or so who vote LP in Justin Amash's district which could cost him his seat in congress if it were a closer election.  
> 
> I can't understand the absolutist puritans who would rather cut off their nose to spite their face.


Sure. And Rand seems to understand that he's better off not aiming his rhetoric at the perinially unhappy.  There are some that will modify their positions to match Rand, there are some that will support him on the faith that his votes will be the ultimate decider, and there are some that will never be happy with anybody but Ron.  That last batch is politically exendable if the new message expands the base by including voters that Ron's message excluded.

----------


## angelatc

> Read what I've said here, Matt.  And stuff the eye-rolls.  
> 
> Public comments suggest future votes.  It's perfectly justified for one to question where his philosophy lies.


Yes, but throwing him overboard for the LP candidate over rhetoric is not, imho, justified.  The last two LP candidates were not Ron Paul, either.  Barr jumped right back to his neocon roots, and Johnson didn't run on a non-intervention platform either.  

We've seen it a million times - politicians talk the talk, but then don't match their rhetoric with their votes.  Allan West comes to mind - he rode in on the TEA Party, then voted for the debt ceiling while calling the TEA Party unreasonable.  And yet the people that were nuts about hm didn't change their minds about him - as long as he said the right things, he was their guy no matter how he voted on fiscal matters.

I'm willing to give Rand the benefit of the doubt.  Let him talk their talk.  Since they don't apparently pay all that much attention to voting records, it could be our ticket to a win.

----------


## sailingaway

> Yes, but throwing him overboard for the LP candidate over rhetoric is not, imho, justified.  The last two LP candidates were not Ron Paul, either.  Barr jumped right back to his neocon roots, and Johnson didn't run on a non-intervention platform either.  
> 
> We've seen it a million times - politicians talk the talk, but then don't match their rhetoric with their votes.  Allan West comes to mind - he rode in on the TEA Party, then voted for the debt ceiling while calling the TEA Party unreasonable.  And yet the people that were nuts about hm didn't change their minds about him - as long as he said the right things, he was their guy no matter how he voted on fiscal matters.
> 
> I'm willing to give Rand the benefit of the doubt.  Let him talk their talk.  Since they don't apparently pay all that much attention to voting records, it could be our ticket to a win.


Pandering is an action, one Ron, if he did it at all, did only on the edges of the margins. There was no question where he stood on things. If you value honesty and trustworthiness, and consider it important to deciding if that candidate is ever going to stand for anything important to you when the chips are down and personal advancement or power lies in another direction, that is going to impact how you feel.  And endorsing Romney _when he did_ is also an action.  Some think it is a big deal, some don't, but precise platform policy positions pale to me, in many respects, next to knowing I can trust the person I am supporting.  

I didn't figure Ron's budget would get through the legislature unscathed, but I knew that to the utmost of his power, he'd have been using his office to fight for priorities for the people and the Constitution, and not special interests, regardless of what he was offered, every time.

For me 2016 is some ways off, and we have another election in between.  I don't have to make a hard and fast decision on Rand at the moment, and looking at the likely field from the view today, he would probably end up with my vote - if only for Ron's sake - just because there is no one else in view, right now.  I am not bagging out of Ron's idea of taking back the GOP, I just draw my inspiration from Ron, and my current motivation from others in the r3Volution who are fighting the good fight.  I want us to be there to support the next Ron Paul - and in the meantime, we'd work to put in the best of the candidates we could find, every time, is how I view it.

Rand is a candidate, but not, to me, the r3VOLution, although he will likely benefit from it, given the current cast of characters likely to run in 2016.  But that is just my individual viewpoint, and there may be as many opinions as people here.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Well and fairly stated, sir.

+rep.

----------


## angelatc

> But I'm especially tired - almost done - with these people running around this forum telling people like me that we're "saboteurs".  Quite frankly, whatever Rand's comments may actually mean, this movement _was_ about principle.


Principles are important but so is winning elections.  THere's nothing unprincipled about basing a decision on a voting record rather than a remark designed to address the attacks the neocons will throw at him.

----------


## angelatc

> Pandering is an action, one Ron, if he did it at all, did only on the edges of the margins. There was no question where he stood on things. If you value honesty and trustworthiness, and consider it important to deciding if that candidate is ever going to stand for anything important to you when the chips are down and personal advancement or power lies in another direction, that is going to impact how you feel.  And endorsing Romney _when he did_ is also an action.  Some think it is a big deal, some don't, but precise platform policy positions pale to me, in many respects, next to knowing I can trust the person I am supporting.  
> 
> I didn't figure Ron's budget would get through the legislature unscathed, but I knew that to the utmost of his power, he'd have been using his office to fight for priorities for the people and the Constitution, and not special interests, regardless of what he was offered, every time.
> 
> For me 2016 is some ways off, and we have another election in between.  I don't have to make a hard and fast decision on Rand at the moment, and looking at the likely field from the view today, he would probably end up with my vote - if only for Ron's sake - just because there is no one else in view, right now.  I am not bagging out of Ron's idea of taking back the GOP, I just draw my inspiration from Ron, and my current motivation from others in the r3Volution who are fighting the good fight.  I want us to be there to support the next Ron Paul - and in the meantime, we'd work to put in the best of the candidates we could find, every time, is how I view it.
> 
> Rand is a candidate, but not, to me, the r3VOLution, although he will likely benefit from it, given the current cast of characters likely to run in 2016.  But that is just my individual viewpoint, and there may be as many opinions as people here.


But there's never going to be another Ron Paul.  You'll be waiting forever.  All we have going forward are candidates who pick up pieces of Paul's platform.  

And I'm not saying that Rand should lie.   I don't believe that we should have allies.  But we do.

----------


## sailingaway

I don't agree there will never be another Ron Paul, there are too many who caught fire from his record.  I DO agree we can't 'only support' those particularly if we take party positions because you take on responsibilities you have to fulfill.  However, my REASON for doing this may be different from yours based on ultimate goals you don't think will occur, then.  I look at the crowds Ron gets, I look at Mark Willis and Ashley Ryan and that National Committeeman in Texas who voted for Willis, and at MO caucuses and Brent STafford and at the Louisiana delegates, the North Dakota delegates, the Idaho precinctmen, the Washington state liberty caucus, etc etc and I see people who will fight for what is right.  Sooner or later, we will get them in office, and as we spread Ron's principles, and people see us continuing the good fight, more will join.

Meanwhile, politicians will use us like any other 'interest group' trying to come just enough in our direction to get our support while trying to carve those parts of their positions out of a framework that doesn't alienate other, diametrically opposed, interest groups.  I understand that.  Out of the pool we actually have, we will have to select the candidate we will support for a particular race in our area, or nationally.  Or run ourselves.  I get that.

I am just working for an ultimate diametrical change from that way of doing business.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

If there is never going to be another Ron Paul, then I won't ever have to worry about voting again... and the '08 and '12 campaigns were for nothing.  Well, for nothing political, anyway.

----------


## sailingaway

> If there is never going to be another Ron Paul, then I won't ever have to worry about voting again... and the '08 and '12 campaigns were for nothing.  Well, for nothing political, anyway.


Consider sticking around and helping us make it so there are others.  When I get my inspiration from Ron, part of that is looking back on the 20 years when he DIDN'T have cheering crowds or people faking his positions to sound like him to get elected, when he was just getting squeezed out of committee chairs and other positions of leadership because of his unwillingness to sell out, to no fanfare at all.  We at least have eachother.  (And I know Ron had a smaller, active group all that time, and I appreciate it, but at that time they weren't in the party to help, and weren't in DC to give him any support.  Thanks to Ron's run, and the launch pad they provided, we are much further along now.)  

Ron also says 'when you know the truth, you have an obligation to act.'

I know politics are not the sole way to do that, but they are one way, and we are making progress, imho.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Principles are important but so is winning elections.  THere's nothing unprincipled about basing a decision on a voting record rather than a remark designed to address the attacks the neocons will throw at him.


Winning elections is important, but only if one sticks to principles.  If not, what have we really accomplished by winning?

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Winning elections is important, but only if one sticks to principles.  If not, what have we really accomplished by winning?


Uh, if the Congress and state legislatures were thoroughly comprised of 80% pro-liberty people we'd be a lot better off. I'll take a bunch of the 80+ers over the rare one 100% any day, no offense to Ron of course. In fact, if we can get to an environment where all these 80+%ers become elected, that means we're closing in on getting a mentality that will provide additional 100%ers.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Consider sticking around and helping us make it so there are others.  When I get my inspiration from Ron, part of that is looking back on the 20 years when he DIDN'T have cheering crowds or people faking his positions to sound like him to get elected, when he was just getting squeezed out of committee chairs and other positions of leadership because of his unwillingness to sell out, to no fanfare at all.  We at least have eachother.  (And I know Ron had a smaller, active group all that time, and I appreciate it, but at that time they weren't in the party to help, and weren't in DC to give him any support.  Thanks to Ron's run, and the launch pad they provided, we are much further along now.)  
> 
> *Ron also says 'when you know the truth, you have an obligation to act.'*
> 
> I know politics are not the sole way to do that, but they are one way, and we are making progress, imho.


megatron post

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Sure it does.  What does that have to do with what we are discussing?


Because you stated Israel provoked attacks. Rand stated an attack on Israel is an attack on us. Israel is provoking many of the threats coming their way. i.e assassinating scientists. It has a lot to do with what we are discussing. Your previous statement explains why I dislike Rand's statements so much. (The only explanation that irks me more is, "because it's the status quo, so he had to say it") Israel provokes, because they rely on us. Other nations can't properly defend themselves, because Israel can rely on us. We get attacked because we support Israel unconditionally. (I'll leave the future attacks to the imagination) This idea that we are obligated to support Israel needs to be addressed. (And not in the way Rand Paul addressed it)

----------


## Wolfgang Bohringer

> People need to find motivation in something else then.  Look at the states we've taken or almost taken.  Look at, if not winning, Priebus having to fly around the country making concessions to keep his job.  The R3VOLution is worth fighting for, even if we are just getting in place so that if the *next* Ron Paul appears he has a party to push him rather than cheat him.  We can't change the world sitting still.
> 
> The r3VOLution isn't about who is running for President, necessarily, it is about us.


Regarding finding "motivation in something else": The difference between a liberty movement with a major party Presidential campaign going and one without is gigantic.

Doug Wead said he was converted to the movement after "spitting out his cheerios" when he heard Ron in the Republican Presidential debate explain to Guliani why "they did 9/11".  

Even if Ron only got 89 seconds out of an hour long debate, that was 1000 times more valuable than all of the "something elses" (3rd party politics, civil disobedience, etc.) that anyone in the pre-r3VOLutionary liberty movement had ever devised.

If a radical libertarian hadn't snuck into those debates and said things that he knew would make Sean Hannity and Glen Beck squeal, then thousands of people like Doug Wead would still be regular Bush Republicans.

I don't think that most of the people such as Wead and Rand that were attracted to Ron's ideas actually understand why.  They just know that there's something honorable and right about the ideas, so they followed him--even when they cringed over and over because they knew that it was going to make Sean Hannity and most of their relatives and co-workers squeal.

The fact that most of Ron's converts don't have the courage of the convictions of the guy who converted them is besides the point.

Unless we have a major party presidential candidate who can't help himself from constantly saying things that make Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh upset, then you can just add "the R3VOlution" to the long list of successful government intelligence gimmick projects to pull libertarian movements toward the center (e.g. Tea Party, Contract with America, 1994 Republican Revolution, Reagan Revolution, etc.).  I think it was former NFL player and lifetime CIA operations officer Ralph McGhehee who said that the purpose of the government's intelligence agencies is always to infiltrate and pull to the center.

It would be cool if Judge Nap recognized this and wasn't afraid to challenge Rand for the nomination on these grounds, but I don't think he quite gets it either.  I don't think Ron or anybody who mattered really quite understood the nuclear equation that explains the unleashing of libertarian energy by Ron's R3VOLution:

honest politician sneaks out forbidden ideas in debates => all kinds of people spitting out cheerios are converted => angry Rush Limbaughs & Hannitys => 100s of articulate delegates bum rush Sheldon Adelson's caucus => tons of votes/police beatings/etc. => goto next debate...

I can't stomach being a dupe and helping build a party that lacks a Ron Paul caliber candidate who scares the living b'Jesus out of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the military industrial complex, and the corporate-bank-ocracy.  Rand doesn't scare them.  If by some fluke he should happen to get elected, its clear that they've got him under control just like Reagan and all the rest.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Winning elections is important, but only if one sticks to principles.  If not, what have we really accomplished by winning?


Very true, which is why you have to also play in legislative season, not just election season. After they're elected they must be held accountable.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Uh, if the Congress and state legislatures were thoroughly comprised of 80% pro-liberty people we'd be a lot better off. I'll take a bunch of the 80+ers over the rare one 100% any day, no offense to Ron of course. In fact, if we can get to an environment where all these 80+%ers become elected, that means we're closing in on getting a mentality that will provide additional 100%ers.


Here's the problem with 80%....you never know what you're going to get with the other 20%.  War?  PATRIOT Act?  TSA?  NDAA?  SOPA?  Will they do the politically expedient thing, or will they stand by their principles?  Will they just say that their one vote wouldn't make a difference, or will they dare to be known as the next "Dr. No"?  Maybe 80% is good enough for you, but not me.  

BTW, please read Wolfgang Bohringer's excellent post on the subject.  That is what is destroyed by compromise.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Very true, which is why you have to also play in legislative season, not just election season. After they're elected they must be held accountable.


So *HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!!* (That includes Rand!!)  Don't make excuses and spin when they're playing to the Limbaugh/Hannity audience!!

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I can't stomach being a dupe and helping build a party that lacks a Ron Paul caliber candidate who scares the living b'Jesus out of Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the military industrial complex, and the corporate-bank-ocracy.  Rand doesn't scare them.  If by some fluke he should happen to get elected, its clear that they've got him under control just like Reagan and all the rest.


Rand doesn't scare them in the way Ron does because he packages himself differently. Tho, I doubt Hannity and co are stupid and don't see the route that Rand is taking it's just that they can't really out him the way they want because they'll be offering up a major conspiracy theory that will make them look stupid. Which is precisely why Rand is running the cover he is between now and leading up to the GOP Primary. He's given little hints to his father's supporters while also relaying to the party that they must adapt to become a majority party again, not just regional or permanent minority. You won't hear Rand on Hannity or Levin showing up saying we need to treat non-violent drug offenders at a local level or saying that he palatable to some on the left in terms of civil liberties and changing foreign policy. He was just on the Jerry Doyle show last Wed (which never was posted in his forum) and he was talking about different things besides what we all heard last week about the Hillary thingy. He was in semi-libertarian mode there so I guarantee once he gets through a primary that'll he'll drop the talk and become the libertarian many of us know him to be.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Here's the problem with 80%....you never know what you're going to get with the other 20%.  War?  PATRIOT Act?  TSA?  NDAA?  SOPA?  Will they do the politically expedient thing, or will they stand by their principles?  Will they just say that their one vote wouldn't make a difference, or will they dare to be known as the next "Dr. No"?  Maybe 80% is good enough for you, but not me.  
> 
> BTW, please read Wolfgang Bohringer's excellent post on the subject.  That is what is destroyed by compromise.


Yeah, I really don't see this whole 80/20 scenario being that realistic anyways. Either you understand Liberty or you don't. Foreign policy, economic policy, and civil liberties all interwine. If you don't get one, you probably aren't going to get the other. And if you do happen to get it, you're getting it for the wrong reasons.. not that that would be unacceptable, I just personally wouldn't vote for them.

----------


## itshappening

> Rand doesn't scare them in the way Ron does because he packages himself differently. Tho, I doubt Hannity and co are stupid and don't see the route that Rand is taking it's just that they can't really out him the way they want because they'll be offering up a major conspiracy theory that will make them look stupid. Which is precisely why Rand is running the cover he is between now and leading up to the GOP Primary. He's given little hints to his father's supporters while also relaying to the party that they must adapt to become a majority party again, not just regional or permanent minority. You won't hear Rand on Hannity or Levin showing up saying we need to treat non-violent drug offenders at a local level or saying that he palatable to some on the left in terms of civil liberties and changing foreign policy. He was just on the Jerry Doyle show last Wed (which never was posted in his forum) and he was talking about different things besides what we all heard last week about the Hillary thingy. He was in semi-libertarian mode there so I guarantee once he gets through a primary that'll he'll drop the talk and become the libertarian many of us know him to be.


I doubt it, if he wins the nomination he has to run to the center even more.  A libertarian who wants to cut everything will get shredded by the Democrat scare machine i.e see Goldwater.

----------


## Matt Collins

> So *HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!!* (That includes Rand!!)  Don't make excuses and spin when they're playing to the Limbaugh/Hannity audience!!


Rand's voting record is almost identical to Ron's.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Here's the problem with 80%....you never know what you're going to get with the other 20%.  War?  PATRIOT Act?  TSA?  NDAA?  SOPA?  Will they do the politically expedient thing, or will they stand by their principles?  Will they just say that their one vote wouldn't make a difference, or will they dare to be known as the next "Dr. No"?  Maybe 80% is good enough for you, but not me.  
> 
> BTW, please read Wolfgang Bohringer's excellent post on the subject.  That is what is destroyed by compromise.


I thought it was a decent post up until the part I took issue with. In my mind, an 80%+ is in no way hard lined on foreign policy and basically that number I give is based upon what I'd expect their voting record to look like via a scorecard from the likes of JBS, perhaps I should've been more clear. I do not and typically haven't supported candidates that have such an erroneous view on FP. In most areas, you can't win by running on 100% status anyways so pick your message accordingly. I'm not saying that I'm happy to only have 80%ers and agree that we always want to strive for better but I still stand by my comment that if the Congress was comprised of 80%ers+ we wouldn't be in debt nor would the Fed have allowed to do what it has done and is currently doing.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I doubt it, if he wins the nomination he has to run to the center even more.  A libertarian who wants to cut everything will get shredded by the Democrat scare machine i.e see Goldwater.


I meant he'll likely use most of what Ron proposed in terms of dealing with entitlements but his lingo on foreign policy will be more in tune to what we hear from Ron to appeal to the many indies that want the wars to end and perhaps some democrats. Calling it running to the center if you want.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand's voting record is almost identical to Ron's.


Not speaking of voting record here, Matt.  We're discussing the boneheaded comment Rand made about attaching U.S. foreign policy to Israel's hip.  The folks at HOTAIR think he's different from his father (see OP)....that's not a good thing, whether he really is or isn't.  If he thinks his father's foreign policy approach is the way to go, he should articulate that instead of pandering.  When he panders, those of us in the Liberty Movement SHOULD criticize him because it's deserved.

----------


## UMULAS

Look you paulbots, Rand is just talking but not walking, so I don't care.

What, politicians pursuade people into getting them to vote for them, _TOTAL SHOCKER_

If you guys don't support them, fine; you're just 1 vote and you DON'T speak for the liberty movement. Rand is working 24/7 for liberty while people here don't even try to run in their GOP office.

You believe that Rand is going to win the GOP nomination with a non-interventionist policy, *Dream on*

Rand is correct, he *will* end foreign aid and to later on Israel; Rand also believes in embassies and of course if Israel is attacked he will declare by congress and check the authencity of it.


TL;DR

Quit you crying.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Not speaking of voting record here, Matt.  We're discussing the boneheaded comment Rand made about attaching U.S. foreign policy to Israel's hip.  The folks at HOTAIR think he's different from his father (see OP)....that's not a good thing, whether he really is or isn't.  If he thinks his father's foreign policy approach is the way to go, he should articulate that instead of pandering.  When he panders, those of us in the Liberty Movement SHOULD criticize him because it's deserved.


If you can't intellectually differentiate between rhetoric and voting record then I don't know what to tell ya....

----------


## belian78

> Look you paulbots, Rand is just talking but not walking, so I don't care.
> 
> What, politicians pursuade people into getting them to vote for them, _TOTAL SHOCKER_
> 
> If you guys don't support them, fine; you're just 1 vote and you DON'T speak for the liberty movement. Rand is working 24/7 for liberty while people here don't even try to run in their GOP office.
> 
> You believe that Rand is going to win the GOP nomination with a non-interventionist policy, *Dream on*
> 
> Rand is correct, he *will* end foreign aid and to later on Israel; Rand also believes in embassies and of course if Israel is attacked he will declare by congress and check the authencity of it.
> ...


$#@! off, hows that?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *Look you paulbots,* Rand is just talking but not walking, so I don't care.
> 
> What, politicians pursuade people into getting them to vote for them, _TOTAL SHOCKER_
> 
> If you guys don't support them, fine; you're just 1 vote and you DON'T speak for the liberty movement. Rand is working 24/7 for liberty while people here don't even try to run in their GOP office.
> 
> You believe that Rand is going to win the GOP nomination with a non-interventionist policy, *Dream on*
> 
> Rand is correct, he *will* end foreign aid and to later on Israel; Rand also believes in embassies and of course if Israel is attacked he will declare by congress and check the authencity of it.
> ...


Thank you. I now pledge my unwaivering support in anything Rand Paul says or does. Who knew all it took was personal insults to persuade me to your side! Keep up the good work!

----------


## Brett85

> If you can't intellectually differentiate between rhetoric and voting record then I don't know what to tell ya....


What about him voting for sanctions on Iran twice?  That obviously violates non interventionist principles.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> What about him voting for sanctions on Iran twice?  That obviously violates non interventionist principles.


Listen here 'paulbot.' Quit crying. Walking isn't talking. And talking isn't walking. Sheesh.

----------


## itshappening

> What about him voting for sanctions on Iran twice?  That obviously violates non interventionist principles.





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F6ZEG5D6uc

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> If you can't intellectually differentiate between rhetoric and voting record then I don't know what to tell ya....


Rhetoric should match voting record. If there is a discrepancy it means there is dishonesty somewhere. I don't like liars, but apparently, it's just fine as long as it helps you grab The Ring. Perhaps you should check yourself in the mirror for turning into the mongrels you so detest.

----------


## Brett85

Yeah, I'm glad that he voted against the resolution which essentially called for war with Iran.  I'll most likely still support him in 2016, but I just don't think it's accurate for anyone to say that he's a non interventionist.  He supports less intervention overseas than most Republicans, but he's not a non interventionist.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Rhetoric should match voting record. If there is a discrepancy it means there is dishonesty somewhere.


False assumption, your premise is incorrect. One can shape one's rhetoric in such a way that still keeps the opposition quiet while maintaining one's principles regarding votes cast. Rand is doing it.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> False assumption, your premise is incorrect. One can shape one's rhetoric in such a way that still keeps the opposition quiet while maintaining one's principles regarding votes cast. Rand is doing it.


No, you can't and you being a propagandizing mouthpiece is beyond stomachable. Shoe, go away, like a fly. BUZZZZZ OFF.

You know why the Church didn't mind Copernicus? The same reason the Establishment GOP doesn't mind Rand. You know why the Church minded Galileo? The same reason they mind Ron. You have much to learn, but you're estranged with a Ring that will corrupt you, and has all ready done so. Look in the mirror! You're turning into Benedict.

----------


## Matt Collins

> No, you can't and you being a propagandizing mouthpiece is beyond stomachable. Shoe, go away, like a fly. BUZZZZZ OFF.


http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem




> You know why the Church didn't mind Copernicus? The same reason the Establishment GOP doesn't mind Rand. You know why the Church minded Galileo? The same reason they mind Ron. You have much to learn, but you're estranged with a Ring that will corrupt you, and has all ready done so. Look in the mirror! You're turning into Benedict.


http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

----------


## compromise

> Yeah, I'm glad that he voted against the resolution which essentially called for war with Iran.  I'll most likely still support him in 2016, but I just don't think it's accurate for anyone to say that he's a non interventionist.  He supports less intervention overseas than most Republicans, but he's not a non interventionist.


He is interventionist only in a scenario which is pretty much impossible. Therefore, I think it is still alright to consider him a non-interventionist.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
> 
> 
> 
> http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

----------


## LibertyEagle

I don't like some of the things Rand has said, either, and I am sure going to watch his votes.  But, I do understand that if he says what a lot of people here require him to say, then he would be sidelined just like his father was.  That means he would be able to do nothing whatsoever with the political machinery to help us.  

He simply cannot say that he wouldn't help Israel even if she was attacked and if I recall correctly, I think even Ron paused when asked that on at least one occasion.  

Rand is slowly moving Republicans away from militarism.  I can even see that on Facebook.  I see how he is changing their minds.  Maybe not as fast as some of you would like, so if you think you can do it better, perhaps you should run for office yourself and show everyone how it should be done.  

I think way too many people around here are spending way too much time and effort attacking our own guys for not being your picture of the ideal candidate, rather than going after the Pelosi's, Reid's, and McCain's out there.  Or doing something of your own to spread liberty.  It's almost like you don't want to do anything yourself, so you expect the few candidates we have to be your ideal and to do it for you.  What's up with that?

----------


## Brett85

> He is interventionist only in a scenario which is pretty much impossible. Therefore, I think it is still alright to consider him a non-interventionist.


Yeah, but sanctions are still a form of intervention.  I have a bigger problem with that than with his Israel comment.

----------


## Brett85

I wouldn't say like some here that we should never help out Israel militarily in any situation.  I just didn't like Rand's statement, because it basically sounded like unconditional support for Israel regardless of what the actual situation is.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yeah, I'm glad that he voted against the resolution which essentially called for war with Iran.  I'll most likely still support him in 2016, but I just don't think it's accurate for anyone to say that he's a non interventionist.  *He supports less intervention overseas than most Republicans*, but he's not a non interventionist.


Seriously?  Than most?  Oh, come on.

----------


## Brett85

> Seriously?  Than most?  Oh, come on.


Well, almost all I should say.  I would say that some house Republicans like Jones, Duncan, and Amash are slightly more non interventionist.

----------


## wrestlingwes_8

> No, you can't and you being a propagandizing mouthpiece is beyond stomachable. Shoe, go away, like a fly. BUZZZZZ OFF.
> 
> You know why the Church didn't mind Copernicus? The same reason the Establishment GOP doesn't mind Rand. You know why the Church minded Galileo? The same reason they mind Ron. You have much to learn, but you're estranged with a Ring that will corrupt you, and has all ready done so. Look in the mirror! You're turning into Benedict.


Very nice post but you're wasting your time with that guy...it's like talking to a wall

----------


## Matt Collins

*Rand Paul's Chief Of Staff Clarifies Rand's Recent Israel Comments -* 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...srael-Comments

----------


## angelatc

> Rand doesn't scare them in the way Ron does because he packages himself differently. Tho, I doubt Hannity and co are stupid and don't see the route that Rand is taking it's just that they can't really out him the way they want because they'll be offering up a major conspiracy theory that will make them look stupid.


That's part of it, but the other part is that it allows them the chance to cash in on the wave without looking like total hypocrites.    Ron Paul was right, we know that, and they spent years running their mouths to convince themselves and their viewers that he wasn't right.  As the economy tanked, right after the primaries where all the GOP candidates except one insisted that the fundamentals of our economy were strong,  America started waking up.  

I think Mitt didn't win.  He was not different enough to drive enough passion to get people to the polls.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> That's part of it, but the other part is that it allows them the chance to cash in on the wave without looking like total hypocrites.    Ron Paul was right, we know that, and they spent years running their mouths to convince themselves and their viewers that he wasn't right.  As the economy tanked, right after the primaries where all the GOP candidates except one insisted that the fundamentals of our economy were strong,  America started waking up.  
> 
> I think Mitt didn't win.  He was not different enough to drive enough passion to get people to the polls.


No, the point is Rand isn't challenging them, and is even AGREEING with them in many aspects. They're not threatened, because they literally aren't being threatened, unlike with Ron. Copernicus wasn't a threat to the Church, so they let him be. It wasn't until Galileo started to challenge their orthodoxy that things started to shift. If people think Rand is going to shift consciousness by agreeing with the very people, and principles that he 'presumably' seeks to change, that is the height of stupidity! You don't win wars, by becoming Eggs Benedict . Ron changed hearts and minds. Rand....well, he soothes and says the right things to the very people who are our adversaries. That...should be troublesome, but I suppose not if your only goal is to attain that Ring of Power at any cost. These same people really really hated when Ron spoke the truth. Well, I've seen the future, and it be the Hippies. Enjoy your road to assimilation.

----------


## Pisces

> Well, almost all I should say.  I would say that some house Republicans like Jones, Duncan, and Amash are slightly more non interventionist.


Amash has said he does not believe sanctions are an act of war. He has also said that he believes Iran is a threat to its neighbors. So I guess he's a neo-con too.

----------


## Pisces

The powers that be are definitely frightened by Rand. He hasn't given them any good ammunition to go after him though. Ron said things that could be easily misunderstood as anti-American and his enemies used that to turn grassroots conservatives against him. (People aren't masochists; you will never win votes by implying their country is evil. And that probably is the case in every country on earth.) Rand is making himself the leader of the anti-establishment conservatives. The neo-cons and the establishment have not yet found a way to make him look bad to this group. My prediction is they might try to make hay out of his recent comments about needing to be more socially moderate to win certain regions. They will probably try to insinuate that he's not really pro-life.

----------


## Brett85

> Amash has said he does not believe sanctions are an act of war. He has also said that he believes Iran is a threat to its neighbors. So I guess he's a neo-con too.


I never said Rand is a neo-con.  I'm not one of the people who just throw that term around without knowing what it means.  But, Amash has at least voted against some of the harsher sanctions on Iran, while Rand has never voted against a sanctions bill as far as I know.  That's why I said that overall Amash is probably slightly more of a non interventionist than Rand is.

----------


## Brett85

> My prediction is they might try to make hay out of his recent comments about needing to be more socially moderate to win certain regions. They will probably try to insinuate that he's not really pro-life.


That's what I'm afraid of as well.  I don't think that was a very smart comment on Rand's part.

----------


## pcosmar

> Rand Paul's Chief Of Staff Clarifies Rand's Recent Israel Comments -

----------


## LibertyEagle

> 


Why would you do this?

----------


## Brett85

> 


You're not convinced and back on board?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No, the point is Rand isn't challenging them, and is even AGREEING with them in many aspects. They're not threatened, because they literally aren't being threatened, unlike with Ron. Copernicus wasn't a threat to the Church, so they let him be. It wasn't until Galileo started to challenge their orthodoxy that things started to shift. If people think Rand is going to shift consciousness by agreeing with the very people, and principles that he 'presumably' seeks to change, that is the height of stupidity! You don't win wars, by becoming Eggs Benedict . Ron changed hearts and minds. Rand....well, he soothes and says the right things to the very people who are our adversaries. That...should be troublesome, but I suppose not if your only goal is to attain that Ring of Power at any cost. These same people really really hated when Ron spoke the truth. Well, I've seen the future, and it be the Hippies. Enjoy your road to assimilation.


Then perhaps you should go tell all those "stupid" people on Facebook who I have personally seen are changing because of what Rand has said and done.

----------


## pcosmar

> Why would you do this?


Is Rands mouth broken? or is his foot still stuck there?

You don't send someone to do damage control unless you know there was damage.

----------


## Pisces

> I never said Rand is a neo-con.  I'm not one of the people who just throw that term around without knowing what it means.  But, Amash has at least voted against some of the harsher sanctions on Iran, while Rand has never voted against a sanctions bill as far as I know.  That's why I said that overall Amash is probably slightly more of a non interventionist than Rand is.



The sanctions bills are different in the House and Senate so who knows. I guess the point I was getting at is that there seems to be an idea that if you don't agree 100% with Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo, that you are a not a non-interventionist. I think that is ridiculous. People can disagree with certain libertarian bloggers and still be principled.  Who made these people gods anyway? If you don't agree with Rand, that is fine. But you shouldn't make it out as if someone is a devil just because they don't act and speak exactly the way you want them to.

Maybe some of this anger towards Rand exists because people feel they are being pressured into supporting Rand because he is Ron's son. Perhaps some of Rand's defenders should change their approach.

----------


## Pisces

> That's what I'm afraid of as well.  I don't think that was a very smart comment on Rand's part.


I agree. He really needs to clarify what he means by social issues. I think GOP base voters will accept ending the war on drugs, and possibly a 10th amendment approach to gay marriage. He'll lose though if he starts being perceived as not truly pro-life.

----------


## Brett85

> The sanctions bills are different in the House and Senate so who knows. I guess the point I was getting at is that there seems to be an idea that if you don't agree 100% with Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo, that you are a not a non-interventionist. I think that is ridiculous. People can disagree with certain libertarian bloggers and still be principled.  Who made these people gods anyway? If you don't agree with Rand, that is fine. But you shouldn't make it out as if someone is a devil just because they don't act and speak exactly the way you want them to.


I don't believe that Rand is a pure non interventionist like Ron is.  He's non interventionist leaning, no doubt.  But he doesn't support a 100% non interventionist foreign policy like Ron does.  Honestly, I'm probably not even as pure of a non interventionist as Ron is, even though I'm probably a little bit closer to Ron on foreign policy than I am to Rand.  Rand is still the most non interventionist Senator we have, but to say that he's a pure non interventionist isn't really accurate in my opinion.  That's not an attack on Rand.  That's just my honest observation.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

Why does it matter if Rand is an interventionalist or non-interventionalist in his rhetoric. What is important is that CONGRESS decides if we go to war. And since Rand pretty much stands for the constitution, we will go to war when congress say we do. 

The problem right now is Obama is doing bad things without congress's permission or approval. That is what is bad. 

If we truly want a non-interventionalist nation.. we gotta change congress.

----------


## Pisces

> I don't believe that Rand is a pure non interventionist like Ron is.  He's non interventionist leaning, no doubt.  But he doesn't support a 100% non interventionist foreign policy like Ron does.  Honestly, I'm probably not even as pure of a non interventionist as Ron is, even though I'm probably a little bit closer to Ron on foreign policy than I am to Rand.  Rand is still the most non interventionist Senator we have, but to say that he's a pure non interventionist isn't really accurate in my opinion.  That's not an attack on Rand.  That's just my honest observation.


Yes, but you can still be a non-interventionist even if you are not 100% "pure". (Whatever the heck that really means.) Who gets to decide what is "pure" enough, though? Is Ron Paul the only standard? If so is it presidential campaign Ron Paul and not the Ron Paul of the '70's and '80's who was anti-communist?

----------


## klamath

> Amash has said he does not believe sanctions are an act of war. He has also said that he believes Iran is a threat to its neighbors. So I guess he's a neo-con too.


 I agree with Amash. They are not an act of war.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, but you can still be a non-interventionist even if you are not 100% "pure". (Whatever the heck that really means.) Who gets to decide what is "pure" enough, though? Is Ron Paul the only standard? If so is it presidential campaign Ron Paul and not the Ron Paul of the '70's and '80's who was anti-communist?


I would say that Ron Paul would certainly be the ideal for what a non interventionist is.  He even went so far as to oppose the raid in Pakistan that killed Osama Bin Laden, saying that was a form of intervention.  That's pretty hardcore.  Like I said, even I'm not that hardcore on foreign policy issues.  But, I think that Ron is pretty much the standard when you're talking about a non interventionist foreign policy.  I don't know anything about his foreign policy views in the 70's and 80's.  I just know what he's advocated in the last two Presidential campaigns.

----------


## HigherVision

> I don't believe that Rand is a pure non interventionist like Ron is.  He's non interventionist leaning, no doubt.  But he doesn't support a 100% non interventionist foreign policy like Ron does.  Honestly, I'm probably not even as pure of a non interventionist as Ron is, even though I'm probably a little bit closer to Ron on foreign policy than I am to Rand.  Rand is still the most non interventionist Senator we have, but to say that he's a pure non interventionist isn't really accurate in my opinion.  That's not an attack on Rand.  That's just my honest observation.


Why would anyone in this age of internet and information not be for non-interventionism at this point? So many hoaxes perpetrated by the government to trick us into war have been exposed. Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq war 1 lies about babies thrown out of incubators, Iraq war 2 lies about WMDs, etc. How can you believe anything that the government says about why we need to support them in further wars at this point? If any normal person in your life lied to you that much you would never believe a word they said ever again. You don't have to believe in any conspiracy theories because just the stuff that's admitted should be enough to completely discredit them in the mind of any thinking person.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I agree with Amash. They are not an act of war.


Ask Japan.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Is Rands mouth broken? or is his foot still stuck there?
> 
> You don't send someone to do damage control unless you know there was damage.


Perhaps he didn't realize that some of Ron's supporters jump first and ask questions later.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I would say that Ron Paul would certainly be the ideal for what a non interventionist is. * He even went so far as to oppose the raid in Pakistan that killed Osama Bin Laden, saying that was a form of intervention.*  That's pretty hardcore.  Like I said, even I'm not that hardcore on foreign policy issues.  But, I think that Ron is pretty much the standard when you're talking about a non interventionist foreign policy.  I don't know anything about his foreign policy views in the 70's and 80's.  I just know what he's advocated in the last two Presidential campaigns.


No. He opposed summariliy executing a man. UBL could have gotten a trial. That's all he said. Adolf Eichmann got a trial. Timothy McVeigh got a trial. For us to shoot UBL, take his body, and dispose of it in _supposed_ Muslim tradition is pretty damn peculiar. Hell, Barzan Ibrahim's (Saddam Hussein's half brother) head was ripped off. They didn't give a $#@! about Muslim tradition then. Yet I'm supposed to believe that UBL was shot and killed, facially recognized, and dumped before nightfall? It really begs questions. And for the record I am not one of the people who claim UBL was killed in Torah Borah in 2003 or a truther or anything like that. For all I know they captured his ass alive, put him in one of our secret prisons and tortured his ass daily until he said something about something. I highly doubt they would kill that high profile of a man without talking to him first. (Unless he raised up, which is not what any accounts state) Very strange story. Anyways, Ron Paul condoned the attack in-so-much as not taking him alive and giving him a trial. As do I.

----------


## Dystopian

> I would say that Ron Paul would certainly be the ideal for what a non interventionist is.  He even went so far as to oppose the raid in Pakistan that killed Osama Bin Laden, saying that was a form of intervention.  That's pretty hardcore.  Like I said, even I'm not that hardcore on foreign policy issues.  But, I think that Ron is pretty much the standard when you're talking about a non interventionist foreign policy.  I don't know anything about his foreign policy views in the 70's and 80's.  I just know what he's advocated in the last two Presidential campaigns.




What was Rand's stance on the raid that killed UBL?  He wants to pose like he's tough on Libya, well what was constitutional about all the raids in Pakistan that he supports?  It's easy to take "tough" stands on things like Libya, but it's a whole other story to take stands on unpopular issues like the UBL raid in Pakistan.  There are not degrees of non-interventionism.  You are either a non-interventionist or you are not.

----------


## klamath

> Ask Japan.


 Ask Nanking china

----------


## klamath

> No. He opposed summariliy executing a man. UBL could have gotten a trial. That's all he said. Adolf Eichmann got a trial. Timothy McVeigh got a trial. For us to shoot UBL, take his body, and dispose of it in _supposed_ Muslim tradition is pretty damn peculiar. Hell, Barzan Ibrahim's (Saddam Hussein's half brother) head was ripped off. They didn't give a $#@! about Muslim tradition then. Yet I'm supposed to believe that UBL was shot and killed, facially recognized, and dumped before nightfall? It really begs questions. And for the record I am not one of the people who claim UBL was killed in Torah Borah in 2003 or a truther or anything like that. For all I know they captured his ass alive, put him in one of our secret prisons and tortured his ass daily until he said something about something. I highly doubt they would kill that high profile of a man without talking to him first. (Unless he raised up, which is not what any accounts state) Very strange story. Anyways, Ron Paul condoned the attack in-so-much as not taking him alive and giving him a trial. As do I.


I think not. 


> Paul says that instead of sneaking into Pakistan and killing bin Laden, he would have cooperated with the Pakistani government and put the al Qaeda leader on trial - a strategy, he argues, that has worked for the United States in the past.

----------


## HigherVision

Putting him on trial would have forced the U.S. government to prove that Osama was actually still alive and that it really was him. Even if you don't believe the theory that he died a long time ago, wouldn't it have been nice of the government to provide some sort of _proof_ that the story they told was legit? You know, since we paid for it and all.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Ask Nanking china


A tragedy yes. I hope you aren't equating the IJA's actions in Nanking to the Iranian government's recent actions. You surely see why that does not hold water.


A quick video. I'm not sure if you will agree or disagree with Ron Paul's statements but thought I should put them out there. (As they are correct)



Sanctions are an act a war. And as much as you'd like to say they aren't, they are. Not to mention that it only stengthens the internal power structure we are supposedly trying to dismantle. Look at Cuba. A lot of poverty stricken children that undoubtedly hate us. The Castros are still in charge though. Why is that?


Ugandan Rebels Mutilate Women
Where would your interventionism end? You do understand there are far more evil men than Ahmadinejad, correct? That far greater atrocities are occuring outside of Iran? We simply don't have the resources or manpower to ever rid this world of evil. We actually tend to have bred evil when all is said and done. i.e. those impoverished kids in Cuba or Iran or Egypt or _____ who see us as the cause of their situation and hate our guts. Then everyone is surprised when we get attacked and encourage more of the same. Perpetual warfare is not in our interest. We can't possibly rid evil from the world. It's a losing battle. But rest assured when I tell you, the kids who survive the starvation conditions we place on their respective countries, growing up with anti-American rhetoric from their elders and reading radical Islamist textbooks we bought and paid for, consider sanctions an act of war. And some may grow up to bomb and attack our embassies etc. And we actually go to war. Look at a larger picture. We could argue whether sanctions are directly an act of war or not all day, but when planes hit on 9/11 (motives included sanctions placed on Iraq and the estimated 500,000 dead) and we went to Afghanistan, it didn't really matter whether they _technically_ were or not, did it? Though I would argue they were.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I think not.


I have heard Ron Paul speak on the raid many times.




ETA: Your potrayal that Ron Paul was in any way being soft (assumed/implied, as it's hard to convey tone through text on an internet forum) on UBL is off. The precedent is what he was against. I could not give a damn less UBL was killed. I would argue against going into a country and summarily executing him though. The fact that we are supposed to be a nation of laws and even the most evil of men should get trials is not a bad thing and the sovereignity of Pakistan also comes into question, (for good reason, I might add)  though I do believe he has stated he would have authorized the raid.

----------


## fr33

> Perhaps he didn't realize that some of Ron's supporters jump first and ask questions later.


With Ron as his father I think he understands the ramifications. He's either telling a lie or he's not a liberty candidate. Ron isn't a saint but he wouldn't lie about a subject as serious as Israel. Rand knew that statement would turn people off.

----------


## klamath

> A tragedy yes. I hope you aren't equating the IJA's actions in Nanking to the Iranian government's recent actions. You surely see why that does not hold water.
> 
> 
> A quick video. I'm not sure if you will agree or disagree with Ron Paul's statements but thought I should put them out there. (As they are correct)
> 
> 
> Sanctions are an act a war. And as much as you'd like to say they aren't, they are. Not to mention that it only stengthens the internal power structure we are supposedly trying to dismantle. Look at Cuba. A lot of poverty stricken children that undoubtedly hate us. The Castros are still in charge though. Why is that?
> 
> 
> ...


You are the one that brought Japan into it. 
Whether or not sanctions are the right answer is a different question. Whether a country has a right to attack another country for not selling to them is another. If we do not sell to Iran I do NOT believe they have the right to attack us with violence any more than I believe if a guy wants to buy my car and I refuse, it gives him the right to shoot me and take my car.

----------


## klamath

> I have heard Ron Paul speak on the raid many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: Your potrayal that Ron Paul was in any way being soft (assumed/implied, as it's hard to convey tone through text on an internet forum) on UBL is off. The precedent is what he was against. I could not give a damn less UBL was killed. I would argue against going into a country and summarily executing him though. The fact that we are supposed to be a nation of laws and even the most evil of men should get trials is not a bad thing and the sovereignity of Pakistan also comes into question, (for good reason, I might add)  though I do believe he has stated he would have authorized the raid.


I know you don't want to hear it but what was RP voting for with the AUMF. And once again Afganistan was not even mentioned it it. It is pretty well obvious that pakistan Knew OBL was there by the very fact of what they did to the doctor that tipped the US off. I think RP is dead wrong on OBL.

----------


## Brett85

> What was Rand's stance on the raid that killed UBL?  He wants to pose like he's tough on Libya, well what was constitutional about all the raids in Pakistan that he supports?  It's easy to take "tough" stands on things like Libya, but it's a whole other story to take stands on unpopular issues like the UBL raid in Pakistan.  There are not degrees of non-interventionism.  You are either a non-interventionist or you are not.


The Pakistan raid had nothing to do with interventionism.  We killed a guy who murdered 3,000 of our own people on 9-11, and the authorization that was passed after 9-11 gave us the legal authority to do it.

----------


## pcosmar

> I know you don't want to hear it but what was RP voting for with the AUMF. And once again Afganistan was not even mentioned it it. It is pretty well obvious that pakistan Knew OBL was there by the very fact of what they did to the doctor that tipped the US off. I think RP is dead wrong on OBL.


NO he wasn't.
He was dead and buried years before, and that sham of a raid was nothing but a botched show.
I have no idea who was killed there,, but it was not OBL.

that is why the evidence was destroyed. That is why there was NO trial.

----------


## pcosmar

> The Pakistan raid had nothing to do with interventionism.  We killed a guy who murdered 3,000 of our own people on 9-11, and the authorization that was passed after 9-11 gave us the legal authority to do it.


The FBI could find NO connection between OBL and 9/11,, and they were trying.
They could not connect him to it at all.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You are the one that brought Japan into it. 
> Whether or not sanctions are the right answer is a different question. Whether a country has a right to attack another country for not selling to them is another. If we do not sell to Iran I do NOT believe they have the right to attack us with violence any more than I believe if a guy wants to buy my car and I refuse, it gives him the right to shoot me and take my car.


The issue arises when we force other countries not to sell to said sanctioned country (this case being Iran) with the threat of sanctions towards them should they violate our bullyish whims, which everytime we get on the subject of sanctions you conveniently leave out. The analogy with the car salesman quickly falls apart as well when we determine that we aren't talking about cars and other petty materialistic $#@! but necessities such as medicine, oil, food etc. We can argue semantics all day long on whether sanctions are or are not an act of war. When it all boils down would you concede that sanctions are aggressive, that they strengthen the internal power structure of said sanctioned country by way of a sense of obligatory nationalism, that they effect the poorer citizenry a hell of a lot more than the leaders of said sanctioned countries, that they breed hatred towards the United States, that they often times lead to war, and that they are foolish in terms of a far sighted peaceful foreign policy approach? Because if we can agree on those simple facts, then the issue of whether or not they are an act of war becomes moot.

----------


## Slutter McGee

> The FBI could find NO connection between OBL and 9/11,, and they were trying.
> They could not connect him to it at all.


$#@! off man. Seriously. $#@! you. Stop bringing you conspiracy theory bull$#@! into every goddamn thread. I hope Rand Paul loses your support because I don't want you dumb-asses destroying his campaign like you did Ron's.   

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Slutter McGee

----------


## klamath

> The FBI could find NO connection between OBL and 9/11,, and they were trying.
> They could not connect him to it at all.


 So now you are telling me RP wanted to put a man on trial that they had absolutely no evidence against?

----------


## klamath

> The issue arises when we force other countries not to sell to said sanctioned country (this case being Iran) with the threat of sanctions towards them should they violate our bullyish whims, which everytime we get on the subject of sanctions you conveniently leave out. The analogy with the car salesman quickly falls apart as well when we determine that we aren't talking about cars and other petty materialistic $#@! but necessities such as medicine, oil, food etc. We can argue semantics all day long on whether sanctions are or are not an act of war. When it all boils down would you concede that sanctions are aggressive, that they stregthen the internal power structure of said sanctioned country by way of a sense of obligatory nationalism, that they effect the poorer citizenry a hell of a lot more than the leaders of said sanctioned countries, that they breed hatred towards the United States, that they often times lead to war, and that they are foolish in terms of a far sighted peaceful foreign policy approach? Because if we can agree on those simple facts, then the issue of whether or not they are an act of war becomes moot.


 Nobody is forcing anybody else through an act of violence to NOT sell. Every country has the right to sell but they don't have the right to expect to continue to be our trade partner because they sell to what we consider our enemy.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I know you don't want to hear it but what was RP voting for with the AUMF. And once again Afganistan was not even mentioned it it. It is pretty well obvious that pakistan Knew OBL was there by the very fact of what they did to the doctor that tipped the US off. I think RP is dead wrong on OBL.


Three words: Marque and reprisal. He eventually made them vote on going into Afghanistan. While the bill was vague and open-ended (and he should not have voted for it, I might add) he has since apologized a number of times and has realized his mistake. The days after Sept. 11 cannot be compared to relative peace time votes for sanctions against a country who was only acting in terms of predictable disobedience. i.e. threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. A bad vote yes. But apples to oranges. And Rand Paul has never apologized for his mistake, but rather seems to stand firmly behind it, I might add. 

Stating that Pakistan obviously knew UBL was in Abbottabad is a very real concern. Ron Paul is arguing over precedent. A precedent he voted Yay on, I'm sure you will mention, but a precedent nonetheless. We should have brought UBL to trial. Whether or not going into Pakistan at the specific time was what should have been done is another thing we could go around and around on. I see both sides of the coin and am personally not troubled to see that POS dead. (Though I'd much rather have seen the firing squad commencing or gallows being built after evidence was exhausted in a court of law) Was there other ways it could have happened? Of course.

----------


## klamath

> The issue arises when we force other countries not to sell to said sanctioned country (this case being Iran) with the threat of sanctions towards them should they violate our bullyish whims, which everytime we get on the subject of sanctions you conveniently leave out. The analogy with the car salesman quickly falls apart as well when we determine that we aren't talking about cars and other petty materialistic $#@! but necessities such as medicine, oil, food etc. We can argue semantics all day long on whether sanctions are or are not an act of war. When it all boils down would you concede that sanctions are aggressive, that they stregthen the internal power structure of said sanctioned country by way of a sense of obligatory nationalism, that they effect the poorer citizenry a hell of a lot more than the leaders of said sanctioned countries, that they breed hatred towards the United States, that they often times lead to war, and that they are foolish in terms of a far sighted peaceful foreign policy approach? Because if we can agree on those simple facts, then the issue of whether or not they are an act of war becomes moot.


Also what you are forgeting is the government of Iran is using the money to build a nuclear weapon at the expense of their own people for their own short sightedness in a quest to build a weapon that indiscriminately incinerates 100,000 people at a time.

----------


## Brett85

> The FBI could find NO connection between OBL and 9/11,, and they were trying.
> They could not connect him to it at all.


Osama Bin Laden claimed credit for the 9-11 attacks.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Nobody is forcing anybody else through an act of violence to NOT sell. Every country has the right to sell but they don't have the right to expect to continue to be our trade partner because they sell to what we consider our enemy.


Acts of violence? No, I guess I'll concede to that. Acts of aggression? Meh, we can dance all night. Semantics be damned, are you willing to concede to my points above? (The last two sentences of the post you quoted)

----------


## bolil

> Osama Bin Laden claimed credit for the 9-11 attacks.


So it seems.

----------


## klamath

> Three words: Marque and reprisal. He eventually made them vote on going into Afghanistan. While the bill was vague and open-ended (and he should not have voted for it, I might add) he has since apologized a number of times and has realized his mistake. The days after Sept. 11 cannot be compared to relative peace time votes for sanctions against a country who was only acting in terms of predicatble disobedience. i.e. threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. A bad vote yes. But apples to oranges. And Rand Paul has never apologized for his mistake, but rather seems to stand firmly behind it, I might add. 
> 
> Stating that Pakistan obviously knew UBL was in Abbottabad is a very real concern. Ron Paul is arguing over precedent. A precedent he voted Yay on, I'm sure you will mention, but a precedent nonetheless. We should have brought UBL to trial. Whether or not going into Pakistan at the specific time was what should have been done is another thing we could around and around on. I see both sides of the coin and am personally not troubled to see that POS dead. (Though I'd much rather have seen the firing squad commencing or gallows being built after evidence was exhausted in a court of law) Was there other ways it could have happened? Of course.


 If all RP would have said was we should not have given the kill order on sight but bring him out alive I would have been with RP but he didn't and I think he is wrong. What ron said is he would have worked with Pakistan and I think that is out right ignorant.

----------


## sailingaway

> If all RP would have said was we should not have given the kill order on sight but bring him out alive I would have been with RP but he didn't and I think he is wrong. What ron said is he would have worked with Pakistan and I think that is out right ignorant.



Ron was concerned with rendition and no trial, particularly given how it was spreading to the US, I'm sure.  He wanted people following procedures, and there was never any authorization of force in Pakistan.  Obama knew OBL was there six months earlier, and OBL didn't have a gun when taken.  I think his main point was trial and procedure, however, this seems to be your pattern to attack Ron to deflect conversation to Ron, when Rand does something people don't like.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Also what you are forgeting is the government of Iran is using the money to build a nuclear weapon at the expense of their own people for their own short sightedness in a quest to build a weapon that indiscriminately incinerates 100,000 people at a time.


Three words again: Yellow cake Uranium. I would like to point out that you can't prove a negative. As in, they say they don't have them. We say they do. How do they _prove_ they do not? Enriching Uranium 235 to 20% for medical radioisotopes is not the same thing as enriching Uranium 235 to weapons grade 90%+.

Please watch this video.

----------


## klamath

> Acts of violence? No, I guess I'll concede to that. Acts of aggression? Meh, we can dance all night. Semantics be damned, are you willing to concede to my points above? (The last two sentences of the post you quoted)


I actually I have said before I don't think sanctions are going to work. However I can't fully condeme someones belief that sanctions might be the only and last hope of stopping or delaying a war they in the end will not have any way of stopping.

----------


## klamath

> Three words again: Yellow cake Uranium. I would like to point out that you can't prove a negative. As in, they say they don't have them. We say they do. How do they _prove_ they do not? Enriching Uranium 235 to 20% for medical radioisotopes is not the same thing as enriching Uranium 235 to weapons grade 90%+.
> 
> Please watch this video.


They are a oil rich country, it is a lot cheaper to build oil based electric plants versus Nuclear. Something isn't adding up.

----------


## sailingaway

> They are a oil rich country, it is a lot cheaper to build oil based electric plants versus Nuclear. Something isn't adding up.


Until very recently they didn't have the capability to refine their own oil.  I think they can to some extent, but not enough to nearly meet domestic needs.  They are a big importer of refined oil/gasoline.

----------


## klamath

> Ron was concerned with rendition and no trial, particularly given how it was spreading to the US, I'm sure.  He wanted people following procedures, and there was never any authorization of force in Pakistan.  Obama knew OBL was there six months earlier, and OBL didn't have a gun when taken.  I think his main point was trial and procedure, however, this seems to be your pattern to attack Ron to deflect conversation to Ron, when Rand does something people don't like.


 I am not even going to go over that same ground with you. The AUMF limited it to NO single country. ANY country that had OBL was a target.

----------


## sailingaway

> I am not even going to go over that same ground with you. The AUMF limited it to NO single country. ANY country that had OBL was a target.


If people had read it that way they would never have needed authorization to go into Iraq. If you research it it is very clear when the Bush administration first started hinting they were planning to read it that way and it was long after we were in Iraq.

Regardless RON always said that was never what it meant, and the idea that it was being used that way made him very angry.

The point here is why he didn't like the way Obama killed OBL out of hand in Pakistan.

Ron himself had sought letters of marque within weeks of 9/11 in order to go after OBL. It wasn't getting him that was the issue, it was the way it was done.

----------


## klamath

> Until very recently they didn't have the capability to refine their own oil.  I think they now have one refinery.


 and they would have a lot more if they weren't spending all their resources trying to perfect the hi tech of nuclear fission. Their government is playing a playing a game too. They are not blameless in this.

----------


## sailingaway

I never said they were blameless, I'm speaking of their capability.

----------


## klamath

> If people had read it that way they would never have needed authorization to go into Iraq. If you research it it is very clear when the Bush administration first started hinting they were planning to read it that way and it was long after we were in Iraq.
> 
> Regardless RON always said that was never what it meant, and the idea that it was being used that way made him very angry.
> 
> The point here is why he didn't like the way Obama killed OBL out of hand in Pakistan.
> 
> 
> Ron himself had sought letters of marque within weeks of 9/11 in order to go after OBL. It wasn't getting him that was the issue, it was the way it was done.


No that is what people thought it meant if they didn't read the damned Authorization. It is extremely clear. In fact it is one of the more clear laws written.

----------


## sailingaway

> No that is what people thought it meant if they didn't read the damned Authorization. It is extremely clear. In fact it is one of the more clear laws written.


NO ONE thought it meant that, and they DID get a separate authorization to go into Iraq, because people did NOT read it that way.  Remember, Bush had just run on a 'modest foreign policy' as compared to Clinton's.

When Bush started HINTING he read it that way the House passed an amendment Ron sponsored with others to a bill CLARIFYING it did NOT mean that, but Pelosi had it yanked in conference committee.

----------


## klamath

> Ron was concerned with rendition and no trial, particularly given how it was spreading to the US, I'm sure.  He wanted people following procedures, and there was never any authorization of force in Pakistan.  Obama knew OBL was there six months earlier, and OBL didn't have a gun when taken.  I think his main point was trial and procedure, however, this seems to be your pattern to attack Ron to deflect conversation to Ron, when Rand does something people don't like.


 And I call bull$#@!, I didn't bring Ron into to this. I agreed with amash on sanctions and someone tried to bring the ultimate weapon in, what RP said on sanctions. I disagree with RP. I know you don't want to allow ANYONE to disagree with RP but some of us supported him and still disagreed with some of his ideas.

----------


## sailingaway

You can disagree with him and disagree with what I said, but that is what I believe from watching Ron closely on this at the time.  You did bring Ron in about OBL, no one else broached that subject.  However, we can disagree.

----------


## klamath

> NO ONE thought it meant that, and they DID get a separate authorization to go into Iraq, because people did NOT read it that way.  Remember, Bush had just run on a 'modest foreign policy' as compared to Clinton's.
> 
> When Bush started HINTING he read it that way the House passed an amendment Ron sponsored with others to a bill CLARIFYING it did NOT mean that, but Pelosi had it yanked in conference committee.


I don't care how many times you try and say that. The bill says ANY COUNTRY.

----------


## sailingaway

It says ANY COUNTRY THAT AIDED IN THE ATTACK ON 9/11.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> and they would have a lot more *if they weren't spending all their resources trying to perfect the hi tech of nuclear fission.* Their government is playing a playing a game too. They are not blameless in this.


And even if they were, would you approve of actions to target and disrupt infrastructure with regards to their nuclear weapons program? We can start with sanctions, go towards assassinating scientists? Assuming you do not have a problem with those would you approve more drastic measures? Perhaps start bombing specific targets related to their nuclear weapons program and/or gradually move towards a full scale ground war? (I am not saying you agree with any of these, as I really do not know, though I would like your opinion on how far is too far) Why should Iran be barred from having a nuclear weapon? Kim Jong Un has some. Pakistan has some. Israel undoubtedly has some and isn't even part of the the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Which Iran is) What disqualifies Iran from having a nuclear weapon? (Though I'd honestly like to see less nuclear weapons, as I'm sure quite a few other people would) I'm simply asking why not Iran? The rhetoric coming out of North Korea the last few months is as threatening or more threatening than anything Iran ever said. (Or is said to have said, i.e. misinterpreted)

----------


## klamath

> You can disagree with him and disagree with what I said, but that is what I believe from watching Ron closely on this at the time.  You did bring Ron in about OBL, no one else broached that subject.  However, we can disagree.


And that is a flat out lie. OBL and UBL were mentioned in this thread before I responded but then again your typical unobjective moderation skills.

----------


## sailingaway

Well, it isn't a lie, because I didn't see those posts.  I saw you bring up Ron on OBL to unrelated comments.  It may have been mentioned earlier.

----------


## klamath

> And even if they were, would you approve of actions to target and disrupt infrastructure with regards to their nuclear weapons program? We can start with sanctions, go towards assassinating scientists? Assuming you do not have a problem with those would you approve more drastic measures? Perhaps start bombing specific targets related to their nuclear weapons program and/or gradually move towards a full scale ground war? (I am not saying you agree with any of these, as I really do not know, though I would like your opinion on how far is too far) Why should Iran be barred from having a nuclear weapon? Kim Jong Un has some. Pakistan has some. Israel undoubtedly has some and isn't even part of the the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (Which Iran is) What disqualifies Iran from having a nuclear weapon? (Though I'd honestly like to see less nuclear weapons, as I'm sure quite a few other people would) I'm simply asking why not Iran? The rhetoric coming out of North Korea the last few months is as threatening or more threatening than anything Iran ever said. (Or is said to have said, i.e. misinterpreted)


I have stated before I think killing scientists IS an act of war. No questions asked. I also think cyber attacks are an act of war.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

im confused why we went into iraq................................

----------


## klamath

> Well, it isn't a lie, because I didn't see those posts.  I saw you bring up Ron on OBL to unrelated comments.  It may have been mentioned earlier.


 Like I said your unobjective moderation. You don't like me so you accuse me of stuff I didn't do and then when I prove I didn't then you say oh well but you have done stuff before. God I would hate to have you in any kind of government office.

----------


## sailingaway

> im confused why we went into iraq................................


Most of us are.

Bush and Cheney and Powell said they had weapons of mass destruction and something or other.

Even at the time, before I'd ever heard of Ron, I just prayed my government knew more than I did and knew what it was doing.

----------


## sailingaway

> Like I said your unobjective moderation. You don't like me so you accuse me of stuff I didn't do and then when I prove I didn't then you say oh well but you have done stuff before. God I would hate to have you in any kind of government office.


I didn't say you had done it before I said that THIS time you raised that to unrelated points, however, I didn't go back and read the whole thread to see if the topic might have been discussed before.

----------


## klamath

> I didn't say you had done it before I said that THIS time you raised that to unrelated points, however, I didn't go back and read the whole thread to see if the topic might have been discussed before.


 Which even proves my case more. You didn't even bother to even look back through the thread before accusing me of bringing OBL up..

----------


## sailingaway

> Which even proves my case more. You didn't even bother to even look back through the thread before accusing me of bring OBL up..


I was only referring to your use of it as deflection to an unrelated point, to begin with.

Another deflection?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I have stated before I think killing scientists IS an act of war. No questions asked. I also think cyber attacks are an act of war.


Good. So should Iran retaliate and strike Israel tomorrow, you would not object? (What I mean is that Iran retaliating against Israel is justifiable (and predictable) since Israel has been doing what they shouldn't have been doing for quite some time now, hand in the cookie jar and all that- Which would lead me to my next question of why haven't they?) I would also assume that you would agree that since Israel (a sovereign nation) has committed an act of war against Iran (a sovereign nation) that the United States should have no part in it whatsoever. _Especially_ no military support, amirite?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> im confused why we went into iraq................................


You could make the case that the effects of sanctions came full circle and brought us to Iraq. I wouldn't, because I know we would have been there one way or another. Though blaming the Clinton era sanctions as a cause of 9/11 isn't that much of a stretch. And blaming 9/11 for us going into Iraq isn't that much of a stretch.

----------


## klamath

> Good. So should Iran retaliate and strike Israel tomorrow, you would not object? (What I mean is that Iran retaliating against Israel is justifiable (and predictable) since Israel has been doing what they shouldn't have been doing for quite some time now, hand in the cookie jar and all that- Which would lead me to my next question of why haven't they?) I would also assume that you would agree that since Israel (a sovereign nation) has committed an act of war against Iran (a sovereign nation) that the United States should have no part in it whatsoever. _Especially_ no military support, amirite?


If Israel did it which it has been rumored that they did then yes. However there are just as many rumors that Iran has funded kill operations in Israel. We may have done it as well. It is pretty $#@!ed up.

----------


## klamath

> I was only referring to your use of it as deflection to an unrelated point, to begin with.
> 
> Another deflection?


 I didn't bring it up GOT IT?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If Israel did it which it has been rumored that they did then yes. However there are just as many rumors that Iran has funded kill operations in Israel. We may have done it as well. It is pretty $#@!ed up.


Truth. Which is simply why I am stating that should we have been involved in the assassination of scientists (which we probably were, who am I kidding) we should have no more part in it, and should Israel and Iran have something they need to 'discuss' let 'em have at it. We are hindering Israel's progression with providing them a cushion to lean on. They would be much more willing to resolve this if we weren't unconditonally backing them up. This post kind of brings me full circle on why I'm pissed at what Rand said/every other politician says regarding Israel. If they were truly a friend to Israel they would stop financially and militarily supporting her enemies, (as well as her) let her make her own decisions on what is a proper reaction, and not get in the way of resolutions to these problems that will continue to fester lest they are nipped at the bud. Wouldn't ya say?

----------


## klamath

> Truth. Which is simply why I am stating we should we have been involved in the assassination of scientists (which we probably were, who am I kidding) we should have no more part in it, and should Israel and Iran have something they need to 'discuss' let 'em have at it. We are hindering their progression with providing them a cushion to lean on. They would be much more willing to resolve this if we weren't unconditonally backing them up. This post kind of brings me full circle on why I'm pissed at what Rand said/every other politician says regarding Israel. If they were truly a friend to Israel they would stop financially and militarily supporting her enemies, (as well as her) let her make her own decisions on what is a proper reaction, and not get in the way of resolutions to these problems that will continue to fester lest they are nipped at the bud. Wouldn't ya say?


 Basically I agree with you. I don't like what Rand said either however Even if we elected RP our country would pretty much one sidely back Israel if a full scale war broke out. RP would not stop it because he would have to carry out a declaration of war or be impeached, that would be his choices.

----------


## Matt Collins

> im confused why we went into iraq................................

----------


## Brett85

Matt, why has Rand been holding meetings lately with neo-conservative foreign policy people?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Matt, why has Rand been holding meetings lately with neo-conservative foreign policy people?



Well the first time he met with Kristol here is what happened:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...d-Bill-Kristol

But  this time I don't know. My guess is that Rand was reaching out again  just to make sure they knew he wasn't crazy or a "political  isolationist" meaning that he was unwilling to work with others. Knowing  Rand the way I do, I would bet that Rand went in there and said  something along the lines of '_we have some fundamental disagreements but I'm here to talk about things we can agree on_'.  This makes it harder for them to fight him during an election since he has reached out to them.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

...to make sure they knew he wasn't **crazy** or a **"political isolationist"**???

WTF...

Hey Josh, why don't you just change the name of this forum to Crazy ol' former political isolationist Ron Paul Forums?

Good luck with that stuff, Matt.  I wish you the best.

SMMFH.

----------


## compromise

> Well, almost all I should say.  I would say that some house Republicans like Jones, Duncan, and Amash are slightly more non interventionist.


Amash voted for one set of sanctions (not the 'crippling sanctions' though). He also said he disagreed with Ron Paul on Bin Laden, he thought Obama dealt with Bin Laden appropriately rather than giving him a trial.

Jones may be a non-interventionist now, but was very hawkish in the past. I don't know how someone who voted for war in Iraq can be more non-interventionist than Rand, who opposed it since the beginning.

Amash and Jones are fairly good, but no one is really as perfect on non-interventionism as Dr. Paul himself.

----------

