Rand Paul To Stress ‘Fusionism’ At Values Voters

[Brett85]

Rand has signed off on giving Israel large amounts of cash. This is highly interventionist and can only strengthen their apartheid ways.

His original position was that we should end all foreign aid immediately. He included that in his budget proposal. Since it became obvious that that wasn't going anywhere, he modified his position to say that we should start with cutting foreign aid to countries that are hostile to us and then phase out foreign aid to Israel over time, after aid is ended to everyone else first. He even said in a recent interview with Charlie Rose that he supports ultimately ending all foreign aid. Watch at the 0:51 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrWuxPwv8f0

 

[Crashland]

Rand has signed off on giving Israel large amounts of cash. This is highly interventionist and can only strengthen their apartheid ways.

Ending the funding for Israel isn't a battle worth fighting right now. It will only be feasible after we first win the argument to stop funding elsewhere.

 

[anaconda]

It's more like an invasion than a civil war. Most of the ISIS members in Iraq aren't even from Iraq. They're from Syria. It's more similar to a situation where one of our allies were attacked and we came to help them. Not to mention that this group has already beheaded two Americans and has stated that their goal is to attack America and kill Americans. I along with Rand see a difference between legitimate self defense on the one hand, and unnecessary intervention when we interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. I agree with Rand that we shouldn't intervene in Israel to try to stop "apartheid."

ISIS is ZERO threat to the U.S. ZERO.

 

[Brett85]

ISIS is ZERO threat to the U.S. ZERO.

And why is that? Because you say so? Do you have access to U.S intelligence reports that the rest of us don't have access to?

 

[anaconda]

His original position was that we should end all foreign aid immediately. He included that in his budget proposal. Since it became obvious that that wasn't going anywhere, he modified his position to say that we should start with cutting foreign aid to countries that are hostile to us and then phase out foreign aid to Israel over time, after aid is ended to everyone else first. He even said in a recent interview with Charlie Rose that he supports ultimately ending all foreign aid. Watch at the 0:51 mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrWuxPwv8f0

Mr. Paul voted to give Israel huge amounts of money. This is a fact. How much of it will be spent on ghetto reinforcement? This is completely "interventionist."

 

[Brett85]

Mr. Paul voted to give Israel huge amounts of money. There is no ambiguity.

Link to the roll call vote?

 

[anaconda]

And why is that? Because you say so? Do you have access to U.S intelligence reports that the rest of us don't have access to?

OK I stand corrected. With apologies. My government knows what's best. I trust their confidentiality. I am a patriot.

 

[Crashland]

OK I stand corrected. With apologies. My government knows what's best. I trust their confidentiality. I am a patriot.

I'm not saying that I agree with either you or TC, but hypothetically, what would it take to convince you that something is a threat to the U.S.?

 

[anaconda]

Link to the roll call vote?

"Voice votes." Apparently no objections.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-02/israel-s-iron-dome-to-get-225-million-under-u-s-bill.html

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/07/senate-including-rand-paul-vote-to.html

 

[Brett85]

I'm not saying that I agree with either you or TC, but hypothetically, what would it take to convince you that something is a threat to the U.S.?

My guess is that he would say that nothing is a threat to the U.S. Apparently we're invincible.

 

[jjdoyle]

"Voice vote." Apparently no objections.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-02/israel-s-iron-dome-to-get-225-million-under-u-s-bill.html

And Rand said it out of his own mouth that he did so.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Ending the funding for Israel isn't a battle worth fighting right now. It will only be feasible after we first win the argument to stop funding elsewhere.

None of these battles or arguments can be won unless the FRAMEWORK changes. The framework is currently one of "Israel must OF COURSE be funded by the US, and protected from its enemies." That is an emotional meme, not one that will budge with an "argument" or incremental gesture---that's an open-ended, ongoing, 100% commitment to financially and militarily intervene. Frameworks have to be broken, as reason cannot overcome them. Same for Iraq, we should be openly talking about how many US puppet leaders our government installs after each invasion, via overt military or covert intelligence ops, who then "invite" the US to continue to intervene.

Rand (and Ron) should have said things like "no, we've been lied to, Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons, it is already able to defend itself. It is ILLEGAL under US and international law, including treaties we are signatories to, for us to be funding a country with nukes if they refuse to allow inspections of them, in the first place. Aid to Israel has to STOP, as it has subsidized extremists in its government to foment more violence and hostility with the Arabs in the region. And US and Mossad intelligence has too often false flagged us into these continuing interventions in the Mideast." Shock therapy, paradigm busting, and major truth injection, is what is needed at this point.

 

[Brett85]

"Voice vote." Apparently no objections.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-02/israel-s-iron-dome-to-get-225-million-under-u-s-bill.html

That means that there wasn't actually a roll call vote on it. Either way though, that's not inconsistent with what Rand has said, since he's said that he supports eventually phasing out foreign aid to Israel and all other countries, but supports foreign aid to Israel until the time that we cut off foreign aid to everyone else.

 

[Brett85]

OK I stand corrected. With apologies. My government knows what's best. I trust their confidentiality. I am a patriot.

Well, you said it like it was an absolute fact, not just your opinion. I thought you might actually have some kind of evidence that ISIS poses "zero" threat to the United States.

 

[anaconda]

I'm not saying that I agree with either you or TC, but hypothetically, what would it take to convince you that something is a threat to the U.S.?

A border encroaching attack where the responsibility is verified and the offense at least exceeds car crash fatalities for a given month. And where a military response does not directly benefit oil or natural gas companies.

 

[Brett85]

A border encroaching attack where the responsibility is verified and the offense at least exceeds car crash fatalities for a given year. And where a military response does not directly benefit oil or natural gas companies.

Lol, so you wouldn't have even been in favor of responding to the 9-11 attacks since the number of people killed didn't exceed the number of car crash fatalities for a given year. You would've just sat back and done absolutely nothing. Do you not understand why Rand has no choice but to ignore people like you?

 

[anaconda]

ISIS has no navy or air force.

 

[anaconda]

Lol, so you wouldn't have even been in favor of responding to the 9-11 attacks since the number of people killed didn't exceed the number of car crash fatalities for a given year. You would've just sat back and done absolutely nothing. Do you not understand why Rand has no choice but to ignore people like you?

A responsible investigation would have been a decent approach. The affronts to our constitution were in no way justified by the fatalities (which is my point). More bomber pilots died in a month in WWII than the fatalities on 9-11. Fighting on behalf of the Constitution to which they recited their military oath?

 

[anaconda]

Do you not understand why Rand has no choice but to ignore people like you?

I gave him a fat chunk of cash in 2010 and generally support him, but do from time to time expect his feet to be held to some smallish BTU level of fire.

 

[Brett85]

A responsible investigation would have been a decent approach. The affronts to our constitution were in no way justified by the fatalities (which is my point).

I agree that we shouldn't have violated the Constitution after the 9-11 attacks, such as passing the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. But I think we must respond with military force whenever we get attacked. ISIS isn't quite as clear since they've only killed two of our citizens overseas rather than attacking actual U.S territory, but I think they pose far more of a threat than what we faced from other countries during previous interventions. I don't believe that either Saddam or Gaddafi ever posed any kind of threat to us. Those wars made things far worse. I do however believe that a full blown terrorist group with an army and millions of dollars in funding represents a rare instance when there's actually a legitimate threat to U.S national security.