Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul: Voters Ready for libertarian Republican
POLITICO ^ | MANU RAJU

Posted on 02/17/2013 11:35:25 AM PST by JohnPDuncan

Sen. Rand Paul says he'll wait until 2014 to decide whether to run for president, but he believes voters are ready for a Libertarian-minded Republican candidate.

"I would absolutely not run unless it were to win," the Kentucky Republican said on "Fox News Sunday." "Points have been made, and we we will continue to make points. But I think the country is really ready for the narrative coming — the Libertarian Republican narrative."

Voters want a "different face," he said.

In order to expand the party's reach, Paul believes the GOP should embrace candidates who are willing to push a less aggressive foreign policy, comprehensive immigration reform and less punitive measures on first offenders of nonviolent drug possession.

"We're doing fine in congressional seats, but we're becoming less and less of a national party," Paul said.

Paul has been making it clear for months that he's leaning toward a presidential run, but he added he won't make a final decision before next year.

In the interim, he said, he'll continue to make his points in the Senate, including over immigration. On the same program, Paul said he'll offer an amendment to the forthcoming bipartisan immigration bill that would require the Government Accountability Office to report annually whether the border is secure and force Congress to vote on those reports. That would occur before the 11 million illegal immigrants can achieve permanent residency, under Paul's plan.

"I do support the concept of telling the 11 million people here that if you want to work and you don't want to be on welfare, we're wiling to find a place for you in America," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: amnesty; anotheridiot; comprehensive; drugs; drugwar; immigration; immigrationreform; kook; likepapalikeson; paul; randpaul; stupidparty; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 next last
To: little jeremiah
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

- Ronald Reagan to Reason Magazine in 1975.

101 posted on 02/17/2013 3:13:11 PM PST by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55

Rand Paul needs to be careful. I heard McCain lump him in with his establishment bunch this morning, saying the Republican Party needs more like Rand!!! Be Careful!


102 posted on 02/17/2013 3:17:38 PM PST by lu shissler (an take his naiv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55

Rand Paul needs to be careful. I heard McCain lump him in with his establishment bunch this morning, saying the Republican Party needs more like Rand!!! Be Careful!


103 posted on 02/17/2013 3:18:08 PM PST by lu shissler (an take his naiv)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

A. I don’t worship at the shrine of Reagan. He was good about some things, not so good about others, a pretty good president compared to most.

B. If he read the current LP party Offical platform, I doubt he’d agree with a lot of it.


104 posted on 02/17/2013 3:19:47 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan

He’s definitely right about the younger generation. We should not underestimate how many of them have refused to put their support behind Obama or the vast majority of Republican candidates - simply because they can’t distinguish among any of them on critical domestic or foreign issues. And while there were a ton of problems with Ron Paul - and so do not get me wrong here, I am not a Paulbot in any way, shape or form - the reality is that no candidate was anywhere near as effective as Ron Paul in uniting younger voters with vastly different views on social and foreign policy issues. Rand Paul seems to be essentially Ron Paul only without the excessive conspiracy mongering and without some of his father’s more problematic foreign policy views. Obviously, not everyone here is gonna be particularly happy with all of his views, policies or actions - since when is that true for any state, local or federal politician - but at least in my view, those of us who are truly serious about keeping America alive should be celebrating this guy.


105 posted on 02/17/2013 3:19:52 PM PST by pythonjavaawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Discussing with you is a mindless and pointless waste of time. Just so you know why I won’t reply to you (other than this).


106 posted on 02/17/2013 3:22:06 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Agreed. Reagan wouldn’t like the LP platform. Not nearly enough Nanny State in it...


107 posted on 02/17/2013 3:28:30 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Discussing with you is a mindless and pointless waste of time. Just so you know why I won’t reply to you (other than this).

I recognize sophistry for what it is (the clever lie of half truth) and point it out when I see it. I understand that pisses some people off, but I learned a long time ago that I can't make everybody happy. Sociopaths can do that, but it just isn't in me.

108 posted on 02/17/2013 3:36:42 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I would posit too much promotion of vice, totally open borders including no Border Patrol, and anyone who wanders is is fine, and the consequent ensuing anarchy.

Basically hardcore anarchy.


109 posted on 02/17/2013 3:44:18 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Libertarians are not anti-military, they are anti-adventurism.

I can live with that.

We need a strong defense, a strong border and strong civil defense as well as a removal of this entitled class of royalty that has gathered in Washington DC.


110 posted on 02/17/2013 3:46:22 PM PST by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan

“”I do support the concept of telling the 11 million people here that if you want to work and you don’t want to be on welfare, we’re wiling to find a place for you in America,” he said.”

Amnesty by any name or conditions is still an invasion gone unchallenged.


111 posted on 02/17/2013 3:53:53 PM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

No one is promoting vice. If you can’t make your point without lying... Don’t bother.

Also. It’s the Nanny State welfare most of the leaches and criminals are coming here for... How’s that working out for us?


112 posted on 02/17/2013 5:08:20 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan

Once again you’re here posting your pro-liberal crap and trying to tie Rand Paul into the liberaltarian party.

Are you looking at the negative responses to Rand as a liberaltarian? Maybe I’ve been wrong about your intentions.

Maybe you really don’t like Rand Paul and your here throwing dirt his way in order to discredit him.

Reverse psychology. Cool.


113 posted on 02/17/2013 7:15:57 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Even without welfare, regular aka legal AMericans need jobs.

The LP platform is pro-vice because they want no laws against any vices. That means “pro”. Also all homonazi agenda. They want it all legal. A nice leftist agenda.

Seems like LP pushers can’t argue without straw men. As though I want welfare and huge fedgov. Nothing could be further from the truth.


114 posted on 02/17/2013 7:42:11 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Being anti-Nanny State isn’t being pro-vise. You lose again...


115 posted on 02/17/2013 7:47:43 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot; KC_Lion; Longbow1969; JohnPDuncan; BarnacleCenturion; i_robot73; tacticalogic; Hugin; ...

Well some critical things to consider here:

1. I know how controversial the issue of support for Israel is with both Ron and Rand Paul. It is something I have thought over very intensely in recent times, considering that I consider myself a proud, unapologetic Zionist and agree with the notion that God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel.

That said, I think that unconditional foreign aid to any nation is problematic and counter productive. I believe that the US can support Israel by actively doing business and engaging in trade with Israel,exchanging military technology and treating an attack on Israel exactly as an attack on our own nation.

The issue is whether or not it is productive to have excessive intervening and adventurism on the Middle East with the claims that it is needed because Israel might be in danger. If it is an issue of electability, well Americans of any political affiliation are overwhelmingly not gonna be throwing their support behind a candidate because they promise to have repeated military interventions and “nation building” adventures like with Libya and claim it is needed because we must look after Israel. For starters, political leaders are often complete liars so it is a given that when they claim they need to protect Israel, it could well be that there are other objectives.

Rand Paul’s position seems to be reduction on foreign aid to all nations. I think that should be something we can live with. We have seen tragically few political leaders and candidates who have been serious at all about stopping foreign aid to clearly malevolent, terror supporting nations like Egypt and Pakistan and serious about working on limiting the amount of oil money sent to the Rich Arab States and taking them head on. Democrats and Republicans alike are too often content to let the Rich Arab states use trillions of oil dollars to fund massive terror networks and terror schools in every corner of the earth.

I would find it incredibly refreshing to have more political leaders say it bluntly - Egypt, Pakistan and the Rich Arab states are not our allies nor are they are “staunch allies” and never have been. Even among so called tough conservatives, haven’t we had more than enough of them pretend that these hostile nations are our good friends and buddies and refuse to get serious about them?

I would only truly consider Rand Paul to be throwing Israel under the bus if he pledged to stop aiding Israel while continuing to send aid to the Muslim Brotherhood, terror supporting Islamic nations and Islamic terror groups. Then I would be the first to call him 100 % unacceptable. But as far as I can see, he is not doing this. And he is advocating that the US allows Israel to defend itself and take care of itself without American intervention. I find this a lot harder to object to than I used to because, frankly, Israel is supposed to be founded on self determination and independence. Zionism is ideally meant to stress not depending on anyone for protection and being able to fight your own battles. As a die hard and enthusiastic supporter of Israel I firmly believe Israel is capable and tough enough to to handle itself without massive American aid and intervention under the guise of keeping Israel safe. Otherwise, what is the point of having Israel as an independent state? Why not just make Israel the 51st American state or have the Jews in Israel live in Jewish Quarters of European or Arab nations? So God blesses those who bless Israel and curses those who curse Israel. I don’t think that blessing Israel necessarily has to mean reducing Israel to complete dependence on our government. Government dependency has been a disaster for everyone who has relied on it.

And then there is the issues of drugs and gay marriage. Now if Rand Paul and Right Libertarians were advocating that the federal govt legalize gay marriage and force all churches, businesses and Americans across the nation to recognize gay marriage, I would wholeheartedly agree that is a problem. But I have not seen proof that they are doing this. To the best of my understanding, they are arguing for getting the government out of the marriage business, which would allow businesses and religious communities to decide for themselves how to define marriage. They do advocate for the Federal govt to recognize same sex civil unions, and I understand that a lot of conservatives would not agree with this. But I simply find that the Right Libertarian viewpoint - of letting the people decide for themselves instead of the Feds as to what defines marriage - to be the solution that makes the most sense.

And as far as drugs, well it has been discussed ad nausuem why the Federal War on Drugs has been a catastrophe and a giant waste of taxpayer money. Not to mention how severely it contradicts small gov’t principles on at least several different levels. At the very least, it would be far more efficient to have drug laws be a state’s rights issue - aren’t conservatives ideally supposed to be really big on states’ rights anyway - treat drug use more as a health issue than a law enforcement issue and yes, pardon all drug offenders who were jailed solely for possession and not for any violent crime.

Now, I can understand if Right Libertarians advocated for certain stances that you found you just could not work with, for example unrestricted abortion on demand, massive defense spending cuts without analyzing them to make sure they don’t reduce our defense abilities below what is needed and a complete open borders policy with no immigration restrictions and amnesty for all illegals. But as has been discussed in this thread, Rand Paul is not advocating for any of these issues - which I would understand would be too problematic for many Conservatives.

And I am not advocating for everyone here to like Rand Paul and be enthusiastic about everything he says. If you still dislike a lot of things he says, I fully understand. I fully understand if you would have serious objections to everything I just got done saying above. We’re not gonna concur with everything and let’s be semi realistic, whoever our top candidates are for President in the next election are, chances very high they will have some stances you have objections to and they will do things you consider highly disappointing. I am fairly certain that is called politics. I believe it is time for those who are serious about keeping America alive to analyze what issues are truly the most vital issues and unite as one on these issues and learn to come together despite any disagreements they may have in other domestic or foreign policy issues. Regardless or personal issues you may have with Rand Paul, if he becomes the most electable Republican we have in 2016, I hardly find that to be cause for mourning or panicking or doom and gloom attitudes.


116 posted on 02/17/2013 7:57:50 PM PST by pythonjavaawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Slinging slogans, especially about shop tools, is meaningless. I’ve been around this topic with you before, and all I can think of is that even though Libertarians all claim (most on FR that I’ve seen, anyway) to not use dope, (though they want it all legal), they must be lying. No one can be such a lame-o debater without being “wasted”.

There’s not a chance in a million of rationally discussing this topic with you. If there was, I would do it.


117 posted on 02/17/2013 8:02:39 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Ad hominem.

You lose again.


118 posted on 02/17/2013 8:06:37 PM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan

Quack, Waddle - Fiscally “Conservative” RINO

Next?


119 posted on 02/17/2013 8:20:49 PM PST by TArcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pythonjavaawk

you forgot to mention the conditions America attaches to the aid most of which is military and they have to buy weapons from Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon. Israel is barred by America from exporting weapons and competing in the lucrative arms market and that’s damaging to Israel’s economic interest. They have the technology and the capability (jews are educated and smart) to be able to develop a weapons industry and compete with the likes of Lockheed rather than be clients of them. In the end this is worth far more than whatever hardware they’re getting off the US (”teach a man to fish...” )


120 posted on 02/17/2013 10:15:28 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Rand calls himself a libertarian Republican, i’m not trying to tie him to anything.


121 posted on 02/17/2013 10:17:26 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55

We need quick action to balance the budget.

Guys like Paul Ryan or Pat Toomey see one ten years or more down the road.

That’s too long to wait.

If Rand Paul is ready to get it done quickly and balance the books, I’ll say Amen to that and vote for him, too.


122 posted on 02/17/2013 10:36:25 PM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan

As far as the prigs are concerned, the only isms dissimilar to statism are pedophilia-ism, drug-ism, homosexual-ism, etc.

The next time you encounter a Conservative that holds the Republican Party and its RINOs in contempt, find out if the sentiment includes republicanism. Then await the stream of hypocritical bullshit on the subject of libertarianism.


123 posted on 02/17/2013 10:43:43 PM PST by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969

The RINO’s have been hustling social conservatives for the last 25 years lip servicing with their Pro-Life and Anti-Gay Marriage rhetoric.

They don’t intend to rock the boat anyway, they just stir up emotions while the liberals advance through courts and media their liberal social agenda.

The RINO’s fought the no-win Vietnam style war in Afghanistan for eight years until Obama picked up the torch and the conflict “drones” on.

As for “social conservatives” I can’t speak for all of them but my own view after seeing the “truth” about myself is that I need to worry more about changing myself than changing society.

I would support Rand Paul over RINO Rubio anytime.

When the Tea Party groups got started, it was really about two motivated groups of people getting into the meetings. First the RINO establishment, trying to keep the conservative grassroots in line, Second the Paul libertarians trying to get the Tea Party behind their ideas.

We either go RINO with Rubio or libertarian with Paul?????

In that scenario, I pick Paul.


124 posted on 02/17/2013 10:48:35 PM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

It hurts me to realize that many people are destroying their lives with drugs (including prescription ones), alcohol, porn, credit cards and the list goes on......

But in the end I can’t go around changing other people, I have to focus on changing myself.


125 posted on 02/17/2013 10:55:56 PM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

Rubio for all of his positives does not meet my understanding of a ‘natural born citizen’ because of his parents not being USA citizens at the time of his birth.


126 posted on 02/17/2013 10:57:32 PM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

The issue is really Pro-Life.

I was in the room back in 1982 when the evangelical scholar Dr. Francis Schaeffer said that Christians should defend human life including the babies born with Down’s Syndrome and those with disabilities etc. etc.

Its about human life in general, not abortion in particular. The GOP political machine turned this issue into an abortion debate only, with emphasis on “partial birth” abortion, crossing state lines with minors for abortions, parental notifications etc.

Those sidebar issues were the Karl Rovian “wedge” issues used to create voting records of “Pro-Life” for RINO’s to keep getting our votes in election after election.

When Terri Schiavo was starved to death in 2005 a phony symbolic RINO inspired vote was taken in Congress to pretend something was being done on her behalf when nothing was being done on her behalf.

The abortion issue has been used to hold voters to the RINO’s while Roe vs. Wade remains the unchallenged law of the land. Attempts to pass Roe v Wade killing legislation in states have been discouraged by the machine affiliated National Right To Life Committee.

The RINO’s have suckered people for years on this.......I would be OK with Rand Paul because even if he calls himself “Pro-Life” and does nothing about it, he would be no different from where the RINO’s have been all these years.


127 posted on 02/17/2013 11:12:22 PM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73

The older Paul was always focused on the notion that a “world order” was being built that tore down the tradition of an independent United States.

The Dems and GOP-E each support such notions in their own ways.

Crazy words that sounded like leftist anti-war rhetoric came out of his mouth all the time after 9/11, but knowing the Ron Paul of the 1970’s when I first learned about him, Paul believed in the Constitution, not international laws or world government.

I don’t think most people really understand the stark reality that military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 were taken with United Nations sanction-approval.

They weren’t about a sovereign nation declaring war (ala WW1 and WW2).

They confuse the brave and courageous actions of our soldiers today with past wars not fought under UN sanction.


128 posted on 02/17/2013 11:22:24 PM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

“The RINO’s have suckered people for years on this......”

Naturally. Because if they did something substantial then they couldn’t come back every year promising to solve the problem if you would just re-elect them.

And, as you noted, a lot of them have no interest in changing things anyway. They just pretend to.


129 posted on 02/17/2013 11:31:10 PM PST by Pelham (Marco Rubio. for Amnesty, Spanish, and Karl Rove.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

I’m listening but I see in Rubio first and foremost an insider politican (he is former Speaker of the House in Florida).

Speakers in legislatures take big campaign contributions from special interests and force members to vote for “imperfect deals” like Boehner’s do.

The GOP-E brought Rubio in and created the “Tea Party” image to take out Charlie Crist in the 2010 Senate primary because Crist had a personal life that would have come out and hurt him in a general election.

Now that he’s a Dem the next thing I expect is for Charlie’s personal life to come out to his advantage in the politics of that party.


130 posted on 02/17/2013 11:32:16 PM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

“I don’t think most people really understand the stark reality that military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 were taken with United Nations sanction-approval.”

You statement is totally flawed. The US didnt go into Afghan or Iraq because of UN approval. That is absurd.

Rand Paul’s comments regarding the US and war are equally absurd.


131 posted on 02/17/2013 11:33:05 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

The historical record is that the United States got approval from the UN because in the post-World War 2 world there is international law.

Harry Truman ran right to the UN Security Council in 1950 got approval from them and called Korea a “police action.” Our troops were under United Nations command then, although led by American generals.

In Irag in particular, there was all this need to get the UN involved before and after the military actions.

In Afghanistan right now our soldiers are part of the UN sanctioned International Security and Assistance Force. UN backing was sought as soon as possible after the military actions following 9-11.

I support our troops, but they fight under international command right now in Afghanistan. That’s the stark reality.


132 posted on 02/17/2013 11:41:13 PM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

You misunderstand UN approval and assistance.

The UN has no bearing on whether the US intervenes in an area.

There is no taking away of sovereignty if the UN agree on an action...none.

We went to both Afghanistan and Iraq due to US presidential action and congressional approval.


133 posted on 02/17/2013 11:49:30 PM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

There’s no doubt we did, but the UN ended up getting dragged in too because of
the kind of post World War 2 international law kind of world we live in.

Rumsfeld said these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t like World War 2 and he’s right. They are limited wars not wars seeking a total and complete victory over the enemy like Roosevelt got over Germany and Japan.

Pakistan meddles in Afghanistan and Iran meddles in Iraq.

Both those nations should have been dealt with to obtain total victory in the wars but were not. One (Pakistan) has nukes and the other (Iran) is developing them. Those were probably the clinchers to deter action just like the fear of killing Soviets (nuclear country) preventing the bombing of Haiphong harbor that would have won the Vietnam War.

W Bush and Obama failed to take these wars to total victory and we are left holding the bags we hold now. No victory in Afghanistan with Pakistani meddling and an Iraq left dominated by Iran.


134 posted on 02/17/2013 11:59:24 PM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr; Nextrush

>>rand Paul’s comments regarding the US and war are equally absurd.

Name three specific examples.

His recent foreign policy speech before the Heritage Foundation (certainly a conservative group) on the topic of Islamic Containment had more sense than the last 200 things I have heard from politicians of any party on the general topic of how we interact with the Muslim world. I welcome a politician willing to openly recognize that radical Islam is a mainstream force in control of powerful countries. Name three other Congressmen who have done this. The only one I can think off offhand is Alan West, and he is now out of Congress.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/25024/rand-paul-speech-full-text-transcript-of-rand-paul-s-heritage-foundation-speech

In general, I get the sense that the anti-Rand Paul posters here think there are no differences between the father and the son. That is far from the case.


135 posted on 02/18/2013 12:06:22 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

Total War and Limited War is another debate.

My point is that the US has not given up sovereignty to the UN. The latest actions came from Executive branch action and Legislative branch approval votes.


136 posted on 02/18/2013 12:08:05 AM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

The United States has acted as if the United Nations needed to be involved in both the Iraq and Afghanistan military actions. We live in an international law world as far as this nations leaders are concerned.

The wars being fought today are about protecting the world order in their minds and I’m not against them as much as I’m against not winning them.


137 posted on 02/18/2013 12:16:39 AM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

The United States has acted as if the United Nations needed to be involved in both the Iraq and Afghanistan military actions. We live in an international law world as far as this nations leaders are concerned.

The wars being fought today are about protecting the world order in their minds and I’m not against them as much as I’m against not winning them.


138 posted on 02/18/2013 12:17:54 AM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Rand Paul:

“In the 1980s, the war caucus in Congress armed bin Laden and the mujaheddin in their fight with the Soviet Union. In fact, it was the official position of the State Department to support radical jihad against the Soviets. We all know how well that worked out.”

1. Calling Reagan and Congress a “war Caucus” is ignorant of the realities of the cold war and insinuated that the US was “war crazy”, as have other comments from Paul.

2. It is urban myth that we armed OBL...totally false and shows ignorance on the topic.

3. Arming the Afghan resistance had nothing to do with jihad.

Paul’s general comment’s that the US and Republicans needs to be less aggressive, implies US fault...and this in conjunction with his comments regarding backing off of social issues, lead me to believe he has a good bit of his father in him.


139 posted on 02/18/2013 12:20:20 AM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

“The wars being fought today are about protecting the world order in their minds ...”

Paulian conspiracy poppycock. The Afghan war is about the Taliban allowing Al Qeada to operate in Afghan, as a base of operations to plan attack on the Us.

The Iraq involvement, rightly or wrongly was about intelligence showing WMD in Iraq and it’s possible use and spread to terrorist entities.


140 posted on 02/18/2013 12:24:28 AM PST by rbmillerjr (We have No Opposition to Obama's Socialist Agenda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

You are so right about Al Quaeda having a base in Afghanistan because of the Taliban.

But now the Taliban have a base of support in Pakistan that enables them to continue to wage war. Pakistan created the Taliban and sent them in to take over Afghanistan some 20 years ago.

And all that’s done about it is the use of drones to pin prick the enemy base of support.

The Bush-Obama policies have involved policing the situation and maintaining order. That’s what I see going on in Afghanistan right now.


141 posted on 02/18/2013 12:43:41 AM PST by Nextrush (PRESIDENT SARAH PALIN IS MY DREAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan

That is actually a very good point I forgot about. I appreciate you reminding me of it.

I also feel we should note that there are often times where Israel feels like she needs to try and constrain herself and hold back whenever the US government objects to her self defense policies because of the manner in which the US treats Israel. I would love as much as anyone else on FR for Israel to have a full speed ahead, damn the detractors attitude when fighting Islamic militants. But it is much easier said than done when “the detractors” are looking to take on the role of Israel’s benefactors. Particularly since Israelis, I imagine, often feel they need to be courteous and considerate when others provide them aid. And I imagine it is largely because it is simply not in their culture to feel entitled to help of any kind from anyone. Entitlement mentalities are generally frowned upon in the Judeo-Christian value system.

I was ultimately trying to address the issue that America’s relations with Israel should be carefully examined and that if a Libertarian Republican like Rand Paul advocates for more analysis of the methods by which we support Israel, that at the very least it does not automatically mean Conservatives should be distancing themselves from these types of candidates. It is NOT the same thing as advocating for blatantly betraying Israel and allying America with Israel’s enemies. Rand Paul has never advocated for that. If a candidate stated they were going to align with Israel’s enemies and fight with Israel’s enemies to destroy Israel, then yes of course I would consider that candidate an enemy of America and someone who should be opposed in every way regardless or his or her views on any other issue. Rand Paul is, at least as far as I have deciphered, clearly not advocating that (hell, Ron Paul never actually advocated for that) and so I feel that Conservatives, who are truly serious and committed about restoring America to its original greatness, should at the very least not be fighting Rand Paul every step of the way simply because of his views on Israel and US interventions.

Thank you for encouraging rational discussion and doing your part in getting the American conservative community to place serious effort into analyzing their views and analyzing how to make these views more accepted among the American public then they already are. In the end, it is gonna be a question of just how important keeping America alive really is to us.


142 posted on 02/18/2013 12:53:28 AM PST by pythonjavaawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

Yes, if only we had attacked a few more countries we would have been successful in our land war in Asia. You know, like all those other successful Asian campaigns other Western countries have had, like... uh...

You know what, you’re the expert here. Please, give us some examples.


143 posted on 02/18/2013 2:43:19 AM PST by Domalais
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I suggest that those who advocate keeping an occupying force in miserable sandpits full of people who hate our guts, for twenty years, are the ones who do not “understand national defense”.


144 posted on 02/18/2013 2:54:11 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Beagle8U
Paul is content to stand around with his thumb in his ass while Iran builds nukes

Exactly as GWB did for eight full years.

145 posted on 02/18/2013 2:58:00 AM PST by Notary Sojac (Ut veniant omnes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan

Someone mentioned Rand Paul! Quick, close the door before all the Paultards... oh, never mind, they’re already here and the OP is one of them. After all, he has posted 16 threads about Rand Paul in the 38 days since he started posting. Not bad for an account that’s only “Since Dec 22, 2012.”

New Paul, same old Paulbots. See his greatest hits, such as:

“Rand Paul Is the Republican to Watch in 2013” - 15 Feb
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2988844/posts

“After Ron Paul, What Now For Libertarians?” - 10 Feb
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2986948/posts

“Rand Paul Makes It Clear: ‘I Really Think’ Obama May Have Had a ‘Gun-Running Operation’ in Libya” - 7 Feb
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2986317/posts

“Rand Paul: My amendment to stop F-16’s to Egypt vote tomorrow afternoon” - 31 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2983689/posts

“Rand Paul Will Propose Ban On Sending F-16s To Egypt” - 29 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2982923/posts

“Rand Paul: F-16 Sales to Muslim Brotherhood ‘A Mistake that Could Haunt Us’” - 25 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981844/posts

“Rand Paul reacts to tense exchange with Hillary Clinton” - 25 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2981479/posts

“Rand Paul’s emerging conservative crusade” - 23 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2981113/posts

“Rand Paul: House leaders ‘retreated’ on debt ceiling” - 22 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2980657/posts

“Rand Paul in South Carolina on Inauguration day” - 22 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2980465/posts

“Rand Paul: GOP must ‘evolve and adapt’” - 20 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2980149/posts

“Rand Paul To Hammer Hillary Clinton On Benghazi: ‘It Was A Career-Ending Mistake’” - 16 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2978480/posts

“Rand Paul On Gun Control: Obama’s No King” - 15 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2978039/posts

“Rand Paul: Building in Jerusalem None Of Our Business” - 14 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2977777/posts

“Paul’s Mideast tour fuels talk of 2016 White House run” - 11 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2976837/posts

“Rand Paul In Israel: End The Gravy Train Of US Foreign Aid” - 10 Jan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2976548/posts


146 posted on 02/18/2013 3:42:11 AM PST by Domalais
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spacejunkie2001

Rove is a channel change. He is smart like a fox— He wants RINOs in power again. WE will deny that . We have denied it twice!! and we will keep on denying it until we have a conservative— Social and fiscal conservative. Someone is leaving this party . Let it be the ROVES.


147 posted on 02/18/2013 4:22:59 AM PST by willardwx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr

I understand that we did not arm OBL directly during the Soviet’s stay in Afghanistan. But to think that we did not enable jihad is absurd. Our people at the time may not have THOUGHT they were helping support jihad, but the reality is they were. The vast majority of Americans including those at State, DoD, and CIA didn’t even understand the term back then, and we are still not using the term now in State or DoD, as I understand it.

Not recognizing that we helped create the conditions for 9/11 by enabling the mujaheddin is no better than calling Hasan and Fort Hood “workplace violence”. It is a studied ignorance of the nature of what we are dealing with.

Note that this is not saying we were 100% at fault for 9/11 by supporting the mujahideen, and by being present in the Middle East, which is what the Left often does. Ultimately Islamics are responsible for their behavior, and their behavior largely hasn’t changed in 1500 years. And Paul seems to more than hint at “getting” this in his speech.

But glossing over the fact that we created some of the conditions that led to OBL being shacked up in Afghanistan does us no good. We must understand the past to better act now for improved future outcomes.


148 posted on 02/18/2013 5:05:41 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: JohnPDuncan
I wouldn't just vote for Rand Paul, I'd campaign for Rand Paul.
149 posted on 02/18/2013 6:21:07 AM PST by arderkrag (An Unreconstructed Georgian, Forever in Rebellion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Excellent news and even if he weren’t a conservative Christian I could support an electable small government libertarian. He really cannot change all that much and would spend any political capital shrinking government. I am all for that.

Let’s support federalism. A simple tax code amendment eliminating the marriage bias and you just killed same sex marriage on the national stage. Let the states decide.


150 posted on 02/18/2013 6:57:40 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson