Skip to comments.Ron Paul and son Rand share DC condo - and political views
Posted on 01/03/2011 6:45:48 AM PST by speciallybland
For much of his 21 years in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul has been a party of one.
The Lake Jackson Republican's libertarian sensibilities make him a cult figure to some and a painful thorn in the side to others, including members of his own party. In retaliation for prizing ideology over party, he often was passed over by the GOP hierarchy for plum posts.
Next year, however, looks different for the Paul family.
Rand Paul, one of five children of Ron and Carol Paul, will share his father's Virginia condominium after winning an election of his own. In addition to a change of clothing, he will bring a tea party agenda of deficit reduction and limited government that is remarkably similar to the ideas that Ron Paul has been espousing for decades.
That shouldn't be much of a surprise. After all, Rand Paul grew up watching his father on the political stage.
In 1976, 13-year-old Rand paid rapt attention as a group of insurgent conservatives fought on the floor of the Republican National Convention to replace President Gerald Ford with Ronald Reagan on the party's ticket. One of the foot soldiers in the Reagan revolution - unsuccessful that bicentennial summer but triumphant four years later - was his father, then a freshman congressman from Texas and one of only four GOP lawmakers with the temerity to endorse Reagan.
"Seeing him stand up for someone he believed in, not just doing whatever the establishment wanted him to, meant a lot to me," Rand Paul said in an interview.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
Classic Paulistinian, that one. Good grief.
I hope that Rand shares the same political views. We can’t afford to keep policing every knook and cranny on the planet.
Amen - what part of BROKE do people not understand?
They want to kill us anyway.
Frankly, if you're willing to tell those people you're willing to take the first hit I suppose it's OK that we're not out there trying to find them first.
I mean, like why should I care what happens to you? Maybe we can get a big arrow or something and float it over your house on a blimp ~ just aim it down and say "Hey, terrorist Nut Balls, here's your boy ~ do it!"
Would that be OK?
Again - we are broke.
Sorry - we have spent TRILLIONS already and heading for fiscal collapse, exactly what Bin Laden wanted and said his goal was.
We got DHS, Patriot ACt, TSA, more nanny state bs, etc all in the name of the WOT.
Sorry - I fear our own govt far more than a few rag heads at this point.
Over-extended militarily and financially, just like Bourbon France and Hapsburg Spain and post-WW2 Great Britain.
Its amazing that some of these neocon types act like history will not repeat itself and serves no lessons for us.
We simply cant afford this anymore.
I’m one of those who could have been described as one of those “neocon types” but ultimately you have to evaluate what you can accomplish, and what the costs are, and what you can afford, and as you said so well, “we are broke”
We have spent trillions of dollars since 2001. how much more are taxpayers supposd to pay?
And how much more devaluation of our currency are we supposed to accept to keep funding this?
The evidence is against you. Study after study, most notably by Robert Pape, in his careful statistical study, Dying to Win, have shown that the primary motivations for suicide attacks throughout the world are foreign occupation. You don't believe Pape? Well then, will you believe Paul Wolfowitz? Back in 2003, Wolfowitz contended (shades of Ron Paul!) that the occupation of the Arabian penninsula was a leading recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Here is what he said:
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
In other words, even Wolfowitz seems to agree that they hate us because we're over there.
My answers are none and none.
Those questions are better for Kristol, most of the GOP, most of the Dems, and most of the posters on this forum.
Boy, I sure hope so! Those Pauls are too rare in 2010. Principal over party.
Defeat is not an option.
paultards are in lockstep with the cut and run leftists..
What a bunch of yellow surrender monkeys..
I have a few buddies who did yours in Afghanistan. Sure these people are savages and barbarians.
However, most have zero intent or ability to ever come here. Something like 90% have never hearda radi or seen a newspaper, let alone have a passport or the ability to get on a us airline.
Sure, we should keep up the special ops stuff, but this nation building stuff is pure crappola and serving only t fund military contractors, corrupt local officials, and bankrupting the USA.
I’m not going for ths anymore considering the threats we face here at home from our own govt w evaluaton of our currency, nanny state, oppresive taxation, etc.
“I hope that Rand shares the same political views.”
Ron Paul may have some good points on fiscal matters, but outside that lane, he borders on being in the nutcase zone. And if Rand indeed shares those views, Kentucky made a mistake by electing him.
Yeah, if only we could get GWB clones in the senate and house.
As far as I am concerned, the shortcomings of Ron and Rand are grossly outweighed by the good they bring to the table.
The era of the neocons is thankfully ending.
Our debt was foreign held back then.
Continuting down this course means we are funding two militaries; ours and China’s through debt payments.
Now, I’ve heard of funding both sides before, but it looks like for WW3 we might just wind up doing it.
Surrender? To whom? There is no one whom to surrender. There is no one to defeat us. We just end up spending vast sums to play deset whack-amole. 10 years. One trillion plus. 5,000 plus American lives lost. We’ve done it to ourselves. And to what end?
While that may be true, they've shown themselves to be quite willing to host and give aid to terror groups who will make the trip.
That's quite a leap, there. I'm hoping Rand's views will be a little more to the side of sane. Ron's over the top.
Which is why we should reserve the right to blow up such camps and make that clear as we withdrawl out of country.
If that is the case, then so be it. But Nutcase Ron hasn't shared that same sentiment.
No doubt - but the world is far too large for us to be everywhere all the time whrever they might be.
I agree with special forces doing their thing wherever these scumbags are, but to put hundredsof thousands of troops is a waste of lives, money, resources, and effort IMHO.
Islam.. If we lose the WOT it will not be because of the islamic hoards of stone age goat herders in sandals with rifles and a hatred for the western culture defeated us. It will be because of yellow cut and run liberals and paultards who prefer we just stick our heads in the sand and allow the islamic hoards to fester and plunder the worlds resources for profit to buy arms to use against us and supply terrorists safe haven and provide resources to use against us.
The problem will not go away if we just ignore it.. That only emboldens and encourages them.
I agree that we should not spend a red cent on “nation building” and other such nonsense. You cannot buy their respect. You and earn it though.. Ask the Japanese..
Well then, if that's the enemy, get back to me when we've stopped importing Muslims into our country.
These people might disagree with you.
I agree with what you're saying here and don't get me wrong.... we should've been more forceful and less reliant on nationbuilding in both engagements. But the problem I have with Ron Paul is his wanting to eschew ALL foreign engagements without a formal declaration of war. In a more classic, i.e., nation vs. nation, sense that would be advisable... but against nonstate actors like al-Qaeda, it doesn't apply.
Countdown for RINO libertarian haters to show up... 5..4..3.. oh, nevermind, they’re already here.
Seems to me like its the liberals and paultard libertarians who defend the so called “constitutional rights” of muslims to practice their “murder cult” in this country. Ron Paul (and all leftists) totally support the victory mosque at GZ and their murder cult false “religion”..
I live in NYC - stop with the bs.
I partially blame our own govt for 9/11. Did you see the immigration apps these scumbags submtted and got through with?
How about the FBI ignoring the warnings of the flight school guy?
Clinton doing nothing for years?
And on and on and on.
Our own Govts’ incompetence played a big role in 9/11 happening as well.
Two points. 1] Follow the Constitution and declare war - no workarounds. We bomb nations, don't we? 2] Al Queda is less than 100 people. We are now on mission creep (make that gallop) broke and borrowing money from China.
You mean conservatives newbie? This ain't the Ron Paul forums.
You must be the only person in the world who can confuse RINOs and conservatives. Getting too old, oldie?
Your boy Osama Bin laden had been EXPELLED from Saudi by the Saudi Government. He "says" the royal family is occupying Saudi and we shouldn't have helped them.
Osama is a liar. Your source there is a liar. Ron Paul is a liar.
One of the reasons he wants to keep a close eye on the money supply is he thinks Jews are manipulating it.
Most of the rest of his beliefs about the world tend along that same line.
It doesn't work. Sometimes you must be prepared to take over the whole country.
Just look in the Constitution and tell us what it says.
BTW, tell us about what it says we have to say if we need to repel invasion.
Just what are the "magic words".
To all antiwar moonbats, Paulistas included:
Hey, if you don't like FR and or our support the war policies leave. Go find a website that supports your unfortunate, short-sighted and misguided antiwar efforts. It's really that simple.
In case you antiwar Paulistas haven't noticed, Free Republic supports the war effort 100%. Many of our chapters protest against the antiwar moonbats either weekly, monthly or whenever the opportunity arises. The DC Chapter has been protesting against the antiwar moonbats EVERY Friday night at Walter Reed for three years.
Free Republic has co-sponsored several cross country caravans and hundreds of rallies in cities all across the country and in DC against the antiwar moonbats and in support of our Commander-in-chief, our troops, the war effort and our Gold Star and Blue Star families, many of whom are FReepers.
When you are supporting antiwar moonbats you are working against Free Republic's mission, hurting our efforts, hurting our families who have lost loved ones or have loved ones involved in the fighting, hurting our troops, damaging their morale, working against our efforts to defeat the enemy, and, in fact, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Antiwar moonbats are the domestic enemy. Antiwar moonbats willingly give aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. In my book, that's tantamount to treason. Ron Paul is an antiwar moonbat. You figure it out. If antiwar moonbats are the enemy and Ron Paul is an aid and comfort supplying antiwar moonbat, then Ron Paul IS the enemy!
If you Paulistas are looking for support on FR for an antiwar moonbat who is giving aid and comfort to our enemies, you're nuts! Free Republic will NEVER support antiwar moonbats!
As far as our official policy on Ron Paul is concerned, it's the same policy we have for his antiwar moonbat allies the traitors Harry Reid, Chuckie Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Jack Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Barbara Streisand, Jane Fonda, CodePink, International Answer, et al and their flaming antiwar spam monkeys. Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!
Where the hell did you guys ever get the idea that enemy supporting antiwar moonbats would be welcome on FR?
That plain enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
168 posted on 09/30/2007 6:22:47 PM EDT by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
Saudi Arabia is not the only country in the Arabian penninsula. Did you bother to read what Wolfowitz said?
Just hasn't happened.
Again, if we could get the terrorists to agree to "targeted listings" I'd be happy enough to put people like you on there just so long as they left me alone.
Alas, they won't go along with that sort of thing. In the meantime I'd like to see our forces ferreting these pukes out and killing them.
Paul was NEVER agaisnt earmarks. Earmarks, as Paul points out, do not translate into spending increases. The money is already appropriated. It is a question of whether the money will be earmarked at the discretion of Obama or Congress. Paul says it should be Congress. Paul doesns't want to "surrender" in Afghanistan and Iraq. He merely wants to let Karzai and the other corrupt welfare bums stand on their own two feet. The censure of Rangel was hypocrisy since most other House members are equally corrupt.
As you other points, I agree entirely with Ron Paul. Unlike some on this forum, Paul did't stop defending Assange after he releaed CLASSIFIED memos which exposed climategate.
Sorry, but your dead wrong on that point. I found this in this in two minutes searching:
As of September 2002 about 2,000 American soldiers were stationed at Al Udeid, down from a peak of 4,000 during the war in Afghanistan. The United States kept two dozen KC-135 Stratotankers and KC-10A Extenders at the base for in-flight refueling of fighter jets and bombers over Afghanistan. And though the number of American soldiers on the base had fallen by half since the peak of the Afghan campaign, to about 2,200, the base had been expanded over the previous six months to accommodate up to 10,000 troops and 120 aircraft.
Qatar agreed to host pre-positioned equipment for an Army brigade, and in 1996 it hosted an air expeditionary force consisting of 30 fighters and four tankers. Air Force pre-positioning was facilitated by the construction of what may be the premier air base in the Gulf at Al-Udeid. The Qatari philosophy behind construction was likened to "build it and they will come" -- obtain the best defense by providing the best facilities for US and coalition forces. The Al-Udeid Air Base was built at a cost of more than a billion dollars. Its runway measures 15,000 long -- the longest in the Gulf. The facility's shelters can accommodate nearly a hundred aircraft, rather more than needed by the Qatari Air Force, which has only a dozen fighters. The facility is owned and operated by the Qatari armed forces.
In 1999, Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad, reportedly told US officials that he would like to see as many as 10,000 US servicemen permanently stationed at Al Udeid.
I like these words to unite the nation in pursuit of victory.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Why do you think going after illiterate cavemen in afghanistan is going to prevent another 9/11?