Skip to comments.Rand Paul: Voters Ready for libertarian Republican
Posted on 02/17/2013 11:35:25 AM PST by JohnPDuncan
click here to read article
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Exactly as GWB did for eight full years.
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
“After Ron Paul, What Now For Libertarians?” - 10 Feb
“Rand Paul Makes It Clear: I Really Think Obama May Have Had a Gun-Running Operation in Libya” - 7 Feb
“Rand Paul: My amendment to stop F-16’s to Egypt vote tomorrow afternoon” - 31 Jan
“Rand Paul Will Propose Ban On Sending F-16s To Egypt” - 29 Jan
“Rand Paul: F-16 Sales to Muslim Brotherhood ‘A Mistake that Could Haunt Us’” - 25 Jan
“Rand Paul reacts to tense exchange with Hillary Clinton” - 25 Jan
“Rand Pauls emerging conservative crusade” - 23 Jan
“Rand Paul: House leaders retreated on debt ceiling” - 22 Jan
“Rand Paul in South Carolina on Inauguration day” - 22 Jan
“Rand Paul: GOP must evolve and adapt” - 20 Jan
“Rand Paul To Hammer Hillary Clinton On Benghazi: ‘It Was A Career-Ending Mistake’” - 16 Jan
“Rand Paul On Gun Control: Obama’s No King” - 15 Jan
“Rand Paul: Building in Jerusalem None Of Our Business” - 14 Jan
“Pauls Mideast tour fuels talk of 2016 White House run” - 11 Jan
“Rand Paul In Israel: End The Gravy Train Of US Foreign Aid” - 10 Jan
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.
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.
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.
The original intent of the Constitution was to create a national government that was the “government of the States”. It was not intended to involve itself in the day-to-day affairs of individual citizens. That was the pervue of the individual state governments. At the national level, “libertarianism” is effectively the same as “original intent republicanism”. (Note: capitalization is significant).
“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.”
Your argument is so flawed, it’s difficult to begin.
We did not arm OBL, nor the mujahedin, which were foreign grouops. We armed the local Afghan Alliance to fight the invading Soviets.
Your leap away from logic to connect that to 9-11 is extraordinary. You further weaken you argument by making another leap away from logic and comparing your first failed analysis to the Hassan “workplace violence” act.
But in the end I cant go around changing other people, I have to focus on changing myself.
Government can't change people anyway - all it can do by banning a commodity or service is hyperinflate the profits (by restricting competition) and channel those profits into criminal and terrorist hands.
Twenty years, what history started the day you were born?
Happy to hear it, where are you?
You are correct—to a point. Nixon originally coined the term “War on Drugs” and created the DEA, but his efforts were mostly aimed at border enforcement and foreign suppliers. It was Reagan who created a cabinet level “drug czar”, and brought in asset forfiture, enhanced mandatory penealties for minor offences within states, etc.
Land war in Asia was something that no one contemplated as a solution other than the international policeman like Truman and LBJ.
MacArthur and Lemay both wanted to use air power on the Chinese in 1951 and the Vietnamese communists in the 1960’s.
Its the failure of air power in Asia for those wars definitely.
I’m voting for anyone who isn’t an anti 10th Amendment, New World Order, crony capitalist, globalist. I’m voting against anyone who is friends with a Bush, a Romney, or a Rove. They are our country’s greatest enemies.
Rand Paul is drinking Daddy’s Kool Aid.
If the Establishment won’t vote for a Palin, Gingrich, or Cain, they certainly won’t vote for a Libertarian.
The only thing Rand is going to do is filter votes out of the conservative base to once again give the nomination to a RINO like Jeb Bush or worse, Christie.
Enjoy Hillary for 8 years after the next 4 of Obama.
I bought a huge stack of OLD NY newspapers at a yard sale at least 15 years ago, and they ALL had stories of the War on Drugs-—they dated mostly from 1912.
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.