[Video] Rand Paul foreign policy speech on senate floor 9/18/14
- Thread starter RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
- Start date
Bastiat's The Law
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,439
And listen to Dan Carlin's podcast.
Dan Carlin - In Search of Context
Skip to @ 14:15 to get to the meat and potatoes
http://traffic.libsyn.com/dancarlin/cswdcc80.mp3
extortion17
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 246
The World v. ISIL ISIS IS . . . well since it's the world then it IS World War III, eh mate ?
georgiaboy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 6,489
Good 'un, Rand!
barnacled - that's the word the MSM will pick up on.
barnacled - that's the word the MSM will pick up on.
Spread the word on social media. People need to see this video.
https://www.facebook.com/candidates4libertydotcom/posts/297326283786214
https://www.facebook.com/candidates4libertydotcom/posts/297326283786214
r3volution 3.0
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 18,553
Around 14:30, mocking the idea that we can just take the rebels claims of being moderate at face value, imitating a rebel, Rand says something to the effect of "O We love Thomas Jefferson, we love him, now give us shoulder launched missiles please." Most people would have said Mickey Mouse or Coca Cola or maybe George Washington. But no, the first thing that came to Rand's mind as representing America was Jefferson. 
P.S. Okay, just finished watching it. Wow! A good fiery speech! I'd like to see more of that from Rand, he's much more rhetorically effective in that tone. And, to boot, what a gold mine of soundbites this will be when events in the near future prove him right. We shall have to resurrect the "__ Paul was Right" genre of youtube videos.
P.S. Okay, just finished watching it. Wow! A good fiery speech! I'd like to see more of that from Rand, he's much more rhetorically effective in that tone. And, to boot, what a gold mine of soundbites this will be when events in the near future prove him right. We shall have to resurrect the "__ Paul was Right" genre of youtube videos.
Last edited:
extortion17
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2014
- Messages
- 246
Yes . . . barnacled (at x:xx mark)
I love it . . . John Q. Public and the mainstream media . . . maybe notsomuch
kcchiefs6465
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 15,193
I wholeheartedly disagree with a couple of his premises. All in all a good speech though.
Better than 99% of the Senate.
In short, to hell with what happens to Israel. If evangelicals are so gung-ho on its defense, perhaps they ought travel and join the IDF. Secondly, to hell with the embassy in Iraq. If it gets overrun I have the perfect response to those affected. Now it may sound heartless but it should be perfectly clear: They Should Not Have Been There.
As to doing something about radical jihadist groups in the region, the use of airstrikes, which undoubtedly will kill innocents, litter the region with unexploded ordinances, and further poison what possibly is the cradle of civilization for an eternity would only further strengthen the support structure of these groups. He is spot on in repeating that even those privy to US intelligence reports haven't a clue of who's who and is spot on in claiming that it is a foolish policy that has backfired many times before providing weaponry to these various factions in an attempt to topple governments and ensure global hegemony. The issue in which he fails to comprehend is that bombing that region, yet again, is going to result in the same unintended consequences as previous campaigns have. They aren't going to eradicate the radical element in the region. Too many people have been affected and now a generation has come to bare that witnessed these atrocities from a young age.
Zarqawi is gone, Bin Laden too... the leaders of AQAP assassinated. What are we left with? There are warlords in Somalia receiving briefcases of cash, the Taliban will regain control over Afghanistan once 'we' leave, Yemen has become a relative hotbed of [AQAP] jihadist activity and sympathy, Kenya, Ethiopia and the entire Horn of Africa is more radicalized than ever, Stinger missile systems are missing, the CIA and JSOC are operating under different Titles in the US Code, there are bases across the region to secure pipeline contracts and oil (the price of which predictably has skyrocketed) and there is a plan to topple Assad and then further aggress against Iran. The situation with Russia is one the United States would rather not face (even if we squander more money on the military industrial complex than them by seven times) and the security of the United States is as it always has been. Except of course the loss of freedom at home.
They give safe haven to terrorists in Florida and California, dictators who made off like bandits or assassins who murdered people for various political reasoning. They still train leaders who will go on to lead death squads and commit human rights abuses, they still torture and render people, black sites exist across the globe. And here 'we' are instead of correcting the problems with runaway agencies committing crimes futilely debating whether or not to bomb again. Is it not obvious that doing so would encourage 'lone wolf' attackers here? That many already sympathize with the seeming war on Islam?
Foolish, foolish, foolish.
And to be clear, who is to pay for this? They (including Sen. Paul) speak of divvying up stolen loot as if it is some sort of normalcy paying homage to a document that never bound any tyrant, and actually was rather flawed since its inception. They aren't speaking of protecting the individual's rights. They are operating under the assumption that it is well, good, and moral that rights be violated for some supposed collective good. It is a farce.
And I understand why Rand Paul cannot say certain things but regardless his views are his views and his views ARE his views. People need to quit insulting my intelligence that he is merely pandering to he or she and accept that he actually believes these things.
I am not trying to be negative. Rand Paul showed me that he is rather knowledgeable on the fiasco there. Before I thought he'd get spanked by some of these high end propagandist, lobbying, whores in a debate. I think he could hold his own.
Better than 99% of the Senate.
In short, to hell with what happens to Israel. If evangelicals are so gung-ho on its defense, perhaps they ought travel and join the IDF. Secondly, to hell with the embassy in Iraq. If it gets overrun I have the perfect response to those affected. Now it may sound heartless but it should be perfectly clear: They Should Not Have Been There.
As to doing something about radical jihadist groups in the region, the use of airstrikes, which undoubtedly will kill innocents, litter the region with unexploded ordinances, and further poison what possibly is the cradle of civilization for an eternity would only further strengthen the support structure of these groups. He is spot on in repeating that even those privy to US intelligence reports haven't a clue of who's who and is spot on in claiming that it is a foolish policy that has backfired many times before providing weaponry to these various factions in an attempt to topple governments and ensure global hegemony. The issue in which he fails to comprehend is that bombing that region, yet again, is going to result in the same unintended consequences as previous campaigns have. They aren't going to eradicate the radical element in the region. Too many people have been affected and now a generation has come to bare that witnessed these atrocities from a young age.
Zarqawi is gone, Bin Laden too... the leaders of AQAP assassinated. What are we left with? There are warlords in Somalia receiving briefcases of cash, the Taliban will regain control over Afghanistan once 'we' leave, Yemen has become a relative hotbed of [AQAP] jihadist activity and sympathy, Kenya, Ethiopia and the entire Horn of Africa is more radicalized than ever, Stinger missile systems are missing, the CIA and JSOC are operating under different Titles in the US Code, there are bases across the region to secure pipeline contracts and oil (the price of which predictably has skyrocketed) and there is a plan to topple Assad and then further aggress against Iran. The situation with Russia is one the United States would rather not face (even if we squander more money on the military industrial complex than them by seven times) and the security of the United States is as it always has been. Except of course the loss of freedom at home.
They give safe haven to terrorists in Florida and California, dictators who made off like bandits or assassins who murdered people for various political reasoning. They still train leaders who will go on to lead death squads and commit human rights abuses, they still torture and render people, black sites exist across the globe. And here 'we' are instead of correcting the problems with runaway agencies committing crimes futilely debating whether or not to bomb again. Is it not obvious that doing so would encourage 'lone wolf' attackers here? That many already sympathize with the seeming war on Islam?
Foolish, foolish, foolish.
And to be clear, who is to pay for this? They (including Sen. Paul) speak of divvying up stolen loot as if it is some sort of normalcy paying homage to a document that never bound any tyrant, and actually was rather flawed since its inception. They aren't speaking of protecting the individual's rights. They are operating under the assumption that it is well, good, and moral that rights be violated for some supposed collective good. It is a farce.
And I understand why Rand Paul cannot say certain things but regardless his views are his views and his views ARE his views. People need to quit insulting my intelligence that he is merely pandering to he or she and accept that he actually believes these things.
I am not trying to be negative. Rand Paul showed me that he is rather knowledgeable on the fiasco there. Before I thought he'd get spanked by some of these high end propagandist, lobbying, whores in a debate. I think he could hold his own.
kcchiefs6465
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 15,193
Well, I commented a little early, I suppose.
I was only half way through when I did.
Starting at 30:10,
No, Mr. Senator, it is not. It would be a war of at least 269 people (who would never go to war and of whom only a few have ever even 'served'), but certainly I am not at war with anyone regardless of what they gather around and declare. Regardless of what the people support and especially regardless of what paid leeches operating on the basis of their own enrichment and retaining of power declare.
You know when I'll be at war? When they invade this country.
Once I can sue my "representative" for breaking their promise or oath, the point to be argued may become a little more grey as opposed to black and white. As it stands, fuck them. Their words mean nothing. They hold less weight in piss than my bladder.
I was only half way through when I did.
Starting at 30:10,
No, Mr. Senator, it is not. It would be a war of at least 269 people (who would never go to war and of whom only a few have ever even 'served'), but certainly I am not at war with anyone regardless of what they gather around and declare. Regardless of what the people support and especially regardless of what paid leeches operating on the basis of their own enrichment and retaining of power declare.
You know when I'll be at war? When they invade this country.
Once I can sue my "representative" for breaking their promise or oath, the point to be argued may become a little more grey as opposed to black and white. As it stands, fuck them. Their words mean nothing. They hold less weight in piss than my bladder.
Right, "great floor speech," even though you viciously attack those of us here on this forum who have simply taken the same position as Rand in regards to supporting air strikes against ISIS. And he reiterated in his speech that he feels that air strikes against ISIS are necessary and justified.
kcchiefs6465
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 15,193
Perhaps some didn't watch the entirety? (the majority of the speech is spectacular but some of his proposed policy is awful)
It is a great speech, though. Rand Paul says quite a bit of things that I think most supporting the airstrikes are unaware of.
I would propose to him the same questions I proposed to you.
I don't know. Devil21 and others have been brutal towards those of us here who have said we support the air strikes, (And like Rand, this is the only intervention we support. We don't support the others) and they give Rand a free pass and even praise him for giving a speech in which he doubled down and made it clear that he supports bombing ISIS. I would just like some consistency.
asurfaholic
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,156
watched the whole thing.
I was very discouraged when I heard that he was explicitly saying he supported airstrikes. I didn't understand and it bothered me in a way I did not think could be possible since I watched the first Ron Paul video back a few years ago.
this speech really cleared things up for me. I don't feel betrayed anymore and once more he wows me with his pure genius. I can accept his position on being for air strikes better because I see that he does actually understand the problem and why there is a problem to begin with.
So
PRESIDENT PAUL
I was very discouraged when I heard that he was explicitly saying he supported airstrikes. I didn't understand and it bothered me in a way I did not think could be possible since I watched the first Ron Paul video back a few years ago.
this speech really cleared things up for me. I don't feel betrayed anymore and once more he wows me with his pure genius. I can accept his position on being for air strikes better because I see that he does actually understand the problem and why there is a problem to begin with.
So
PRESIDENT PAUL
DevilsAdvocate
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2011
- Messages
- 1,608
"Barnacled enablers"
-Rand Paul (referring to neocons)
-Rand Paul (referring to neocons)
I see what he's doing to win support from multiple groups and I'm ok with it. He is a politician. You are not. He gets slack. You do not. Simple.
Do you have some link or some kind of evidence that Rand made a statement that his foreign policy is exactly the same as Ron's down to the last detail?
Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
Devil did not claim such. He claimed that Rand is a politician, and as such, gets some extra slack. Much as a few of his comments were over the top from what I would consider justified, I agree with him here. Now, how much slack could be up for debate, and I'm still wrestling with that... I suspect I will continue to do so until 2016.
But it's not the case that Rand just always goes with majority opinion because he's a "politician." The most recent poll shows that Republican voters in particular believe that there's too much of an emphasis on defending civil liberties on not enough of an emphasis on fighting terrorism, so right now they strongly support the Patriot Act, the NSA program, and other similar programs. Is Rand going to come out in favor of those surveillance state policies simply because those policies are popular with Republican voters at the moment? Of course not. He'll stand strong on those issues just like he's stood strong against surveillance state policies since he's been a Senator. So why do people think that Rand is in favor of military strikes against ISIS simply because it's popular with Republican voters when he's repeatedly taken unpopular positions on other issues? If Rand were strongly opposed to military strikes against ISIS at his core, he would oppose them.
Similar threads
