[video] Rand Paul says Clinton Foundation details are 'alarming' - Hannity - 4/20/2015

[orenbus]

 

[Galileo Galilei]

If the book was not already a best-seller, it will be now thanks to Rand!

 

[cat_woman]

Thanks for posting this. We cut the cable and don't get Fox now, but of course I do like to hear interviews with Rand.

 

[muh_roads]

White tan circles around the eyes for Randy.

Sorry for going off-topic here. I know this is about beating up on Goldman Sachs Team Blue for an opportunity, I just get bored with it. Practically everyone in Washington is crooked anyway... real shocker.

I'm just fascinated with the Saudi talk lately.

The build-up to go to war with the Saudi's is beginning, IMO. And they have been saving it since 9/11, which they are even starting to talk about now in short segments and subliminal ways. This is even a war that a minority of libertarians could get behind.

Do we adhere to the non-aggression principle? Or do we attack the Saudi's if it is revealed their Government played a hand in 9/11? Rand would technically not be in the wrong to attack Saudi Arabia if he were commander in-chief at the time. It was an act of war involving a foreign Government versus the US.

If I were to believe in TPTB and the need for their approval for media attention, I would say this is a war that Rand agreed to.

 

[alucard13mm]

It is alright for Hillary CLINTON. She cut off her connections with the CLINTON foundation a few days before her announcement!

 

[squirl22]

Do we adhere to the non-aggression principle? Or do we attack the Saudi's if it is revealed their Government played a hand in 9/11? Rand would technically not be in the wrong to attack Saudi Arabia if he were commander in-chief at the time. It was an act of war involving a foreign Government versus the US.

If a country attacks the United States, we defend ourselves. That's the primary role of our federal government. So, if the Saudi's were responsible for 9/11, we should have defended ourselves from them, not Afghanistan. I don't see any contradiction with Libertarian principles; I thought defense was the one thing Libertarians support as a role of the federal government.

 

[hells_unicorn]

If a country attacks the United States, we defend ourselves. That's the primary role of our federal government. So, if the Saudi's were responsible for 9/11, we should have defended ourselves from them, not Afghanistan. I don't see any contradiction with Libertarian principles; I thought defense was the one thing Libertarians support as a role of the federal government.

I don't think he thinks is such collectivist terms as "we" and "ourselves", or at least that is the vibe I got from his post despite his own employment of the terms. Likewise, the pointless jab at Rand indicates he's got the Adam Kokesh disease, which I've heard is contagious, so watch out. (joke)

Anyhow, attacking the nation of Saudi Arabia is not really necessary nor prudent at this juncture, nor any other Middle Eastern country for that matter, but you need to distinguish between "reality" and "what most Americans believe". All the ridiculous anti-Iran rhetoric dovetailing with ISIS being our mortal enemy has solidified the notion that American blood will spill in the Middle East at the behest of American "interests", so Rand will need to play into this rhetorically, at least for the time being.

Having said that, the best approach would be to pull those ships out of the region and let Iran arm the insurgents in Yemen, which would have the dual effect of having 2 predominant Islamic powers at war with each other and not with us. The only remaining problem is Israel, which shares in the amusement that the Saudis experience when it comes to seeing America fight and suffer for their regional agenda.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

If a country attacks the United States, we defend ourselves. That's the primary role of our federal government. So, if the Saudi's were responsible for 9/11, we should have defended ourselves from them, not Afghanistan. I don't see any contradiction with Libertarian principles; I thought defense was the one thing Libertarians support as a role of the federal government.

Defend ourselves yes.

But, some asshole in control of some country hires someone to attack, then why kill the people of the country? Just take out the asshole.

You see, if everyone that hates what our country is doing overseas would just take it out on the assholes in our country that instigated and promoted it and lied about it... instead of us (we the people), some day in the future, then I'll be fine with that.