Hotair: Rand Paul differentiates foreign policy from his father’s brand

[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.