Rand Supports Some Foreign Bases, Big Difference from His Dad

[LibertyEagle]

Not once has anyone questioning in this thread said they hate Rand. It is only the people who defend him no matter what that use that term.

Hardly, Kathy. And I haven't defended Rand NO MATTER WHAT. But, I damn sure remember those who defended RON, NO MATTER WHAT.

Turn around and look in the mirror.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Oh geesh guys. Ron Paul is a good man. Justin Amash is a good man. Rand Paul is a good man.

We need ALL of them and many more. We don't have to choose between them.

 

[EBounding]

Ron would wholeheartedly endorse anyone who wanted to reduce the US government's footprint overseas. Why can't everyone else?

 

[kathy88]

Hardly, Kathy. And I haven't defended Rand NO MATTER WHAT. But, I damn sure remember those who defended RON, NO MATTER WHAT.

Turn around and look in the mirror.

Oh get off your high horse. No one has said they hate Rand even if they disagree with his strategy. But those people are consistently labeled Rand haters by you and others.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Do good men go and undermine the good work a liberty minded individual is accomplishing? Amash and Massie, while maintaining pretty great votes, are undermining some of the alliances Rand has made...

Uniting that fractured party to the extent Rand did was no small or easy task...I don't know what either of those two thinks they are accomplishing right now. Not to mention, Amash got himself booted from the committee...we could have used him there.

Oh geesh guys. Ron Paul is a good man. Justin Amash is a good man. Rand Paul is a good man.

We need ALL of them and many more. We don't have to choose between them.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Because we have ideologues who want Murray Rothbard to run and win the presidency. However, they seem to forget Ron endorsed members of the GREEN party in 2008....or do they not remember that endorsement of "all 3rd parties."

Ron would wholeheartedly endorse anyone who wanted to reduce the US government's footprint overseas. Why can't everyone else?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Oh get off your high horse. No one has said they hate Rand even if they disagree with his strategy. But those people are consistently labeled Rand haters by you and others.

Yes and some damn well have shown by their own words that they do hate Rand. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with an action and being on a full out vendetta.

And if you accuse me of something that is untrue, I will damn well get on any horse I damn well please.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Do good men go and undermine the good work a liberty minded individual is accomplishing? Amash and Massie, while maintaining pretty great votes, are undermining some of the alliances Rand has made...

Uniting that fractured party to the extent Rand did was no small or easy task...I don't know what either of those two thinks they are accomplishing right now. Not to mention, Amash got himself booted from the committee...we could have used him there.

They are their own men and will do what they believe is best. Rand will do likewise. All of them will make mistakes.

 

[dinosaur]

Oh get off your high horse. No one has said they hate Rand even if they disagree with his strategy. But those people are consistently labeled Rand haters by you and others.

I think that LE is basing hate on action, rather than use of the word "hate". There are few to none here who support blindly support Rand, but many who blindly and unthinkingly jump on any excuse to undermine or name call.

 

[Brett85]

Ron would wholeheartedly endorse anyone who wanted to reduce the US government's footprint overseas. Why can't everyone else?

I wholeheartedly endorse him. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with him on every issue or that I can't point out that he's not entirely correct on this issue.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Because we have ideologues who want Murray Rothbard to run and win the presidency. However, they seem to forget Ron endorsed members of the GREEN party in 2008....or do they not remember that endorsement of "all 3rd parties."

Ron Paul > Murray Rothbard.

Yes and some damn well have shown by their own words that they do hate Rand. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with an action and being on a full out vendetta.

And if you accuse me of something that is untrue, I will damn well get on any horse I damn well please.

For curiosity, are you putting me in that group of people who don't like Rand?

I like him, a lot. Most Republicans and Democrats are progressives. Rand is a conservative. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarian > Conservative > Progressive. I'll take a real conservative over a progressive anyday. I will also take a real libertarian over a real conservative any day.

I read this earlier and thought about posting this here, but then I figured I would get neg repped and called a bunch of names, so I decided not to. I'm a Rand supporter, but I'm not one of these people that think that he can never be criticized for anything. I just don't agree with him on this issue. I'm not in favor of just closing down all of our bases overnight, but I think the goal of any non interventionist should be to at least phase out all of our bases over several years. Obviously Rand is still head and shoulders better than any of the other candidates running, and I'll support him. But I'll make it clear when I disagree with him, and I disagree with him on this issue. I don't think it's an extreme position to eventually bring all of our troops home from overseas.

I'm definitely more radical than you are. I want them all home now, screw the special interests that will no longer be able to steal from us, and the radical Muslims who will no longer have an ecuse to kill us.

If you want principles, go with Amash, Rand and Massie.

Ironic that those who are calling Rand unprincipled here are lying.

Define "Principled." Also, explain exactly what you think Rand Paul believes. The only way you can say he is completely principled is to say that he doesn't hold the exact same views as Ron Paul, which he doesn't. I don't honestly even think he's a liar, I think he's being completely honest when he says he disagrees with his dad.

Rand is a constitutional conservative. Ron is a libertarian. As I said, I'd take a constitutional conservative over the nonsense we have now, but I will criticize Rand when he is wrong. Like on this issue.

Oh hell, TP. This movement has always been fractured since some people figured out that they could garner a quick buck off of the people in this movement.

I think your issue is that your blinders won't allow you to see beyond the people on this forum. There is a whole world out there and there are a lot of people who thought Ron was a crackpot, but like Rand. I have heard Rand explain the very same position that Ron had and while they rolled their eyes when Ron said it, applaud when Rand says it. Why? Because Rand explains it differently. They can hear what Rand is saying. He puts it in terms they understand and can relate to. Ron didn't. It's just the truth. Ron appealed to a certain segment and he won many of them over and can still win over many others. But, what of the people he can't? Do we just forget them? Many of them are good people. I think Rand can reach them. I have seen it with my own eyes.

And no, I don't think Rand is controlled. But, as with everyone, time will tell. He's not my god. If he goes bad, I won't be on his train.

Except that sometimes Rand says something vaguely similar to, but not the same, as what Ron says. The OP is a good indication of this point. Rand wants to close overseas bases, which is good, but he doesn't want to close ALL of them. He was very clear that he does not. He talks about a "Happy medium." Which is, again, better than the status quo, but not what Ron advocates, which is a TOTAL noninterventionist policy.

You can't argue my point that Rand's eventual goals are absolutely no different than Ron's, because really I think saying otherwise would be utterly false. Rand is controlled? Controlled by whom? His voting record is just as independent from the Republican norm as Ron's was.

If Rand has the exact same goals as his dad than he is indeed telling lies as he is saying that he does not agree with his dad completely on important issues like foreign bases. Is he broadly close? Sure. Is it the same? No.

I don't think Rand is controlled, yet. But I think its very possible that he will be once he gets in the White House. I hope not, but you never know...

 

[talkingpointes]

Yeah, it's the people that have been stabbed in the back a 100x that are done. I don't care about power. I also don't hate Rand. How is questioning his motives hating him? I know how, when it becomes so obvious in your face deception that that becomes your only response. I would never defend someone like that. It's childish and pathetic.

You so many in here feed at the very things they propose to stop. You allow Rand all this rope and you will soon enough do it too the others. Goldwater gave back credibility to Republican party and right after the 1966 election it went right back to Rockefellers party. They gave Goldwater the spotlight to clean up all their mistakes and pay for their sins -- and they didn't help him after.(the rnc) These are still the same people doing the same things.

I admit that Ron wasn't running to win. I think he was speaking to entire generation to grow up and shed of this government enslavement. Looking back he didn't even care to build blocs to win - ever. Just once in a while joining to make a vote he knew would count. Because in the end if you believe a cabal of people are controlling the show - what else can you do.

 

[talkingpointes]

Ron Paul > Murray Rothbard.



For curiosity, are you putting me in that group of people who don't like Rand?

I like him, a lot. Most Republicans and Democrats are progressives. Rand is a conservative. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Libertarian > Conservative > Progressive. I'll take a real conservative over a progressive anyday. I will also take a real libertarian over a real conservative any day.



I'm definitely more radical than you are. I want them all home now, screw the special interests that will no longer be able to steal from us, and the radical Muslims who will no longer have an ecuse to kill us.


Define "Principled." Also, explain exactly what you think Rand Paul believes. The only way you can say he is completely principled is to say that he doesn't hold the exact same views as Ron Paul, which he doesn't. I don't honestly even think he's a liar, I think he's being completely honest when he says he disagrees with his dad.

Rand is a constitutional conservative. Ron is a libertarian. As I said, I'd take a constitutional conservative over the nonsense we have now, but I will criticize Rand when he is wrong. Like on this issue.



Except that sometimes Rand says something vaguely similar to, but not the same, as what Ron says. The OP is a good indication of this point. Rand wants to close overseas bases, which is good, but he doesn't want to close ALL of them. He was very clear that he does not. He talks about a "Happy medium." Which is, again, better than the status quo, but not what Ron advocates, which is a TOTAL noninterventionist policy.


If Rand has the exact same goals as his dad than he is indeed telling lies as he is saying that he does not agree with his dad completely on important issues like foreign bases. Is he broadly close? Sure. Is it the same? No.

I don't think Rand is controlled, yet. But I think its very possible that he will be once he gets in the White House. I hope not, but you never know...

When someone can speak for 13 hours straight and doesn't produce 1 freudian slip. I think there is something wrong.

Also - even calling him a constitutional republican is debatable.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Huh? I don't see how you can have had a problem with the filibuster. That was just brilliance on Rand's part.

I've held Rand's feet to the fire on many things, but the filibuster was one of the good ones.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

All you do is troll. You haven't given one logical argument. Your biggest complaint is "I think the elites are financing him. So I don't trust him."

You're just ridiculous. And you can't even defend Amash with the link I've provided. You claim he's untouchable, yet I give you an instance where he would not stick to his guns (something Rand has ALWAYS done) and you conveniently shrugged it off like it never happened.

You just don't know what you're talking about.

When someone can speak for 13 hours straight and doesn't produce 1 freudian slip. I think there is something wrong.

Also - even calling him a constitutional republican is debatable.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Oh get off your high horse. No one has said they hate Rand even if they disagree with his strategy. But those people are consistently labeled Rand haters by you and others.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to kathy88 again.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Also - even calling him a constitutional republican is debatable.

I didn't say Republican, I said conservative. The latter is a mild compliment, while the former is an insult. Granted, Rand wears the Republican badge, but he, like his father and thank God, are RINOs. To be an actual philosophical Republican these days, to actually fit in that group, is to be a progressive neocon who emphasizes the neoconservative side of progressivism more than the liberal side, but to fully agree philosophically with both. Granted, not all Republicans believe these things, but the leaders do. To be a good Republican is to be a bad American. Which is why I was neg-repped for saying Lindsey Graham was a great Republican last year. This is a little extreme but its almost like saying Hitler was a great Nazi, and Oscar Schindler was not. Its true. Schindler wore the badge, but did not actually believe in the Nazi Message or defend it. He was a Nazi in name only, not real nazi. Hitler, by contrast, was awesome at being a Nazi, and awful at being a good German citizen.

Graham, by contrast, is a great Republican, and a crappy American. Both Ron and Rand are good Americans, Ron moreso than Rand, but Rand as well. But both are really, really crappy at being Republicans, by virtue of not being quasi-fascist neocons.

As for the CONSTITUTIONAL side of it, to my only knowledge the one area that I know of where he has expliclty disagreed with the constitution is that he supports Federal Anti-Abortion legislation. As the absolute decentralist that I am, I do not agree with this, although I do believe the President should use his power to pardon to defend anti-aboriton vigilantes who limit their violence to the guilty. However, to discount someone as a constitutionalist on one issue is silly. What's Rand's position on entitlements? Does he want to phase them out, or "Save" them?

 

[kathy88]

Who are you referring to?

The as swipe who neg repped me twice two minutes apart. Why do you have to spread good rep out but you can pile on the neg? Bite my ass dude.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm pretty sure you can't pile on the neg either, you have to spread it around. I know because I tried neg repping someone (Not you, and I apologized to them later when I realized they were being satirical) twice back to back on different posts and couldn't.

 

[Brett85]

As for the CONSTITUTIONAL side of it, to my only knowledge the one area that I know of where he has expliclty disagreed with the constitution is that he supports Federal Anti-Abortion legislation. As the absolute decentralist that I am, I do not agree with this.

But Ron introduced the exact same type of bill.