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

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.
 
cajuncocoa said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you can't intellectually differentiate between rhetoric and voting record then I don't know what to tell ya....
 
UMULAS said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fuck off, hows that?
 
UMULAS said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Matt Collins said:
If you can't intellectually differentiate between rhetoric and voting record then I don't know what to tell ya....
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Austrian Econ Disciple said:
Rhetoric should match voting record. If there is a discrepancy it means there is dishonesty somewhere.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Matt Collins said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Austrian Econ Disciple said:
No, you can't and you being a propagandizing mouthpiece is beyond stomachable. Shoe, go away, like a fly. BUZZZZZ OFF.
Click to expand...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Austrian Econ Disciple said:
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.
Click to expand...

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
 
Traditional Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
compromise said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but sanctions are still a form of intervention. I have a bigger problem with that than with his Israel comment.
 
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.
 
Traditional Conservative said:
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.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Than most? Oh, come on.
 
Austrian Econ Disciple said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very nice post but you're wasting your time with that guy...it's like talking to a wall
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Heritage Foundation report calls to wind down military aid to Israel
Replies
3
Views
62
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
PAF
Cuts to Foreign Aid is a Good Start
Replies
2
Views
137
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
CaptUSA
Rubio Ends All Foreign Aid (except for well, y'know)
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Israel Will Bleed America Dry and Discard It Like an Old Shoe
Replies
15
Views
1K
unknown
unknown
jmdrake
Supreme Court rules against Trump on foreign aid, spelling potential problems for DOGE
Replies
9
Views
173
nobody's_hero
nobody's_hero
Back
Top