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

Skip to comments.

Rand Paul gets standing ovation at Berkeley:‘Your right to privacy is under assault’
The Daily Caller ^ | 3/19/14 | Alex Pappas

Posted on 03/19/2014 11:46:02 PM PDT by Lou Budvis

BERKELEY, Calif. — Delivering a rare speech for a Republican at this bastion of liberalism, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday was given multiple standing ovations by the left-wing audience after railing against government surveillance and warning the students: “Your right to privacy is under assault.”

“I am here to tell you that if you own a cell phone, you’re under surveillance,” he told the crowd.

Paul’s address at the Berkeley Forum on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley focused on the National Security Agency’s collection of telephone metadata and the debate over privacy.

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


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2016; nsa; randpaul
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
The GOP is a minority party on a national level and to win the presidency, the 2016 nominee needs a message that will resonate beyond the base. Reagan could not have won without the Reagan Democrats. So far, Rand is the only potential nominee who may be able to poach votes from the dems with a message like this.
1 posted on 03/19/2014 11:46:02 PM PDT by Lou Budvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

We just went through this with Romney, he was famous as a social liberal, and he managed to lose to Jimmy Carter on the verge of a depression.

Rand Paul has already started with his call to move left on social issues.

Reagan won by winning social conservatives, in fact the best election the libertarians have ever had in their history, was trying to defeat the man that Ayn Rand despised, Ronald Reagan in 1980.


2 posted on 03/19/2014 11:57:03 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
We just went through this with Romney, he was famous as a social liberal,

That's bullcrap. The young saw Romney as a rich Mormon.

He fit every leftist stereotype of what a Republican is: religious and out of touch with the poor.

3 posted on 03/20/2014 12:08:49 AM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

The right to privacy though is neither left nor right.


4 posted on 03/20/2014 12:11:03 AM PDT by Republican1795.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

After 5 minutes of truth from Paul, the Berkley campus will need thousands of activists to re-educate the students.


5 posted on 03/20/2014 12:11:35 AM PDT by Southack (The one thing preppers need from the 1st World? http://tinyurl.com/ktfwljc .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat

The governor who gave America gay marriage, who had been running on homosexualizing the military and Boy Scouts since 1994, who was the most passionate, and sincere, pro-abortion republican that any of us have ever seen, and who ran against the GOP pro-life platform and being pro-abortion, he even ran pro-abortion ads in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Virginia.

Romney was the first nominee in history to win hugely among the independents, yet lose the race, and he did it in an election that couldn’t lose.

-—Romney first to win independents big, lose election

-—”Whoever wins independent voters in Ohio, wins Ohio,” Beeson said on “Fox News Sunday,” two days before the election.
He was, of course, wrong. Romney won self-identified Independents in Ohio by a overwhelming 10 points, according to exit polls, but lost the state to President Barack Obama by 2 points.
A similar trend was seen across much of the country — Romney won among Independents by 5 points, 50-45, but lost to Obama, 51-48.

-—INFOGRAPHIC: Obama Lost Independent Vote In Almost Every Swing State
The president only won the independent vote in one battleground state: North Carolina.
Things looked very different for Obama in 2008, when independent voters came out in huge numbers to support him.
Just before Election Day, the Wall Street Journal reported those polling numbers had hardly changed, with Romney overwhelmingly leading among independent voters across the country. Republican pollster Bill McInteruff told the Journal the Democrats were “really flirting with trouble if you’re losing independents by this margin.”


6 posted on 03/20/2014 12:16:30 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Reagan won by winning social conservatives

It's not 1980/1984 any longer. If you did a poll then, probably 90%+ of the country would be opposed to homosexual marriage. Now it's supposedly 50-50 in places such as Utah, and anyone being honest with themselves can tell which way it's trending. Marijuana is always moving towards legalization.

I would like a candidate that is pro-state rights on those issues (and abortion), and that's it. I don't need a Santorum-type.

7 posted on 03/20/2014 12:17:35 AM PDT by PaulCruz2016
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vFhXpfEfQg


8 posted on 03/20/2014 12:23:57 AM PDT by Bobalu (Happiness is a fast ISR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

he got a standing o….and not a single one will ever vote for him. This is fool’s errand. We won in 2010 without an ounce of this type of stuff…..


9 posted on 03/20/2014 12:26:26 AM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

I hear your plea to move left, I don’t just hear it from you and the libertarians, and the rinos, I hear it from the New York Times, the Washington Times, Time Magazine, MSNBC.....

We heard in in 1980 as well, it is the eternal message in the war against America and conservatism and God.

We just had that election, and Romney cleaned up with Independents with his pro-abortion ads and his reputation for being a social liberal.


10 posted on 03/20/2014 12:28:07 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
I would like a candidate that is pro-state rights on those issues (and abortion), and that's it.

States right? Rand is a Senator voting on federal law, and is running for president, gays in the military, abortion on federal lands, gay marriage in the military and in federal employment and in immigration are not "state" issues.

11 posted on 03/20/2014 12:30:44 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016

Its not just about gay marriage its about religious liberty.

It would be nice if we could trust the gay marriage advocates to get married and leave dissenters alone but they want to use govt to punish any one who disagrees. Because of that Paul can say what he wants but business owners in New Mexico will still be sued because they refused to celebrate a gay marriage.


12 posted on 03/20/2014 12:35:51 AM PDT by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The welfare state and the security state are the one and the same. People are waking up to this. Romney was hardly a tribune to fight the establishment.


13 posted on 03/20/2014 12:36:42 AM PDT by Lou Budvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

Those conservative positions have been hard fought, now is not the time to move left into libertarianism and turn against conservatism.

If the social agenda of the libertarians and the left prevails, then we will only create more liberal voters, and we are lost.

Social liberalism creates many more dependent and lazy democrats, than “economic” conservatives, many, many, many, more.


14 posted on 03/20/2014 12:42:20 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Your conflation of libertarianism and liberals is more than merely stupid - you’re trying very hard to protect the RINOs under the guise of conservatism.

The Tea Party is real libertarianism. Conservatism is libertarian, because it is founded and based on small government.

Tea Party Coservatives and Libertarians both want small government.

Liberals and RINOs what big government.

That is the dividing line.

YOU are trying to sabotage that movement by LYING about libertarians.

Which means you are a RINO - because what you are doing is exactly what RINOism is all about.


15 posted on 03/20/2014 12:49:56 AM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

What is left on the social conservative agenda that is obtainable?
Even if Roe were struck down tomorrow, abortion would still be legal in many states.

Even more so with gay marriage. No state that has gay marriage is going to end it. The number of states that have gay marriage and public opinion mean that a constitutional amendment is not going to happen.


16 posted on 03/20/2014 12:52:00 AM PDT by Lou Budvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

Liberals want us to move left, you want us to move left, libertarians want us to move left, rinos want us to move left, the left wants us to move left.

You ALL agree that you want to defeat social conservatism.

The only part of conservatism that libertarians like is our economics and efforts to retain traditional small American government, something that in the last 60 years has proven impossible as America has become broken through social liberalism/libertarianism.

Voters who are not social conservatives, vote themselves more goodies, not fewer.


17 posted on 03/20/2014 12:54:55 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I BELIEVE with MUCH smaller government the social issues will correct
themselves in our society!! It is government pushing the culture down our
throats making all of this massive legislation and regulation!


18 posted on 03/20/2014 12:55:39 AM PDT by Kit cat (OBummer must go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

Rand isn’t running for Governor, Rand is a Senator voting on federal law, and is running for president, gays in the military, abortion on federal lands, gay marriage in the military and in federal employment and in immigration are not “state” issues.


19 posted on 03/20/2014 12:57:10 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

LOL, so you reject people wanting the smallest possible government - literally the mechanism by which America can be saved - if they don’t want it for ALL of your reasons?

So big government can stay - the massive overreach of federal power, the massive sucking of all the tax money, the gigantic over-regulation of every aspect of life, the huge criminalization of everything it means to be an American and a human being - all of that can stay, and is trivial - compared to everyone accepting your entire agenda, and not “just” that?

And you call your position “reality”?

Well I call your position “sabotage.”


20 posted on 03/20/2014 1:02:40 AM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

It’s vain to argue against an idee fixe.


21 posted on 03/20/2014 1:05:20 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

No one is arguing against small government, I never see that argument here, we are for small government, it is a major reason we are social conservatives, social liberalism makes small government imposssible.

You are arguing for us to move left on social issues, that is the argument we see here at freerepublic, and it is the argument that we are seeing on this thread.

Rand isn’t running for Governor, Rand is a Senator voting on federal law, and is running for president, gays in the military, abortion on federal lands, gay marriage in the military and in federal employment and in immigration are not “state” issues, they are issues of bigger and more costly federal government.


22 posted on 03/20/2014 1:10:20 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kit cat

I agree. Take away the gigantic force-feeding mechanism, and the sick agendas dry up - because they are unsustainable on their own power. That’s WHY their supporters also support such a huge increase on governmental power.

People who don’t understand this don’e understand the concept of cutting your opponant’s supply lines. In WWII, once we took away the North Africa oil fields from the Nazis, the war was won. It still had to wind down, and there was all sorts of dangerous drama, but the Nazis weren’t going anywhere without gas and oil.

Same thing with big government. The Left needs a gigantic government to ram all their sickness down America’s throat. Without big government, they dry up and blow away - because their “ideals” are MEANT to destroy, and not to sustain. So without force to back them up, they die.

And that’s why I suspect those who hammer on political idealism to prevent this single issue from uniting people are saboteurs, hiding under the guise of “pure” conservatism, “pure” religion, or “pure” anything else. Small government IS purity - REAL purity. The ONLY purity.


23 posted on 03/20/2014 1:10:52 AM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

America was able to get away with as small a government as it did (smaller than the British one it shrugged off) because it had a gospel foundation.

Now the moment I point that out to ansel12, ansel12 shrieks that we must vote for a social conservative cause and that there ain’t any difference between small-l and large-L liberarians.

I’d chide you, but a little less. Still, folks are going to have to concern themselves with evangelization again (tell what the Lord Jesus Christ has done) before the country is even going to be comfortable with a mini-government again.


24 posted on 03/20/2014 1:14:51 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

There is a difference between allowing something to exist under the law, and spending tax money on it.

Would you kill gays? No. Does that mean we should subsidize gay marriage? No. Is it possible there is a middle ground, protected by small government, that would undermine the taxation and legalization of this issue? Yes. DO we need the votes to beat the Rats so we can reduce the government size and deny the mney and excessive legislation this, and other social issues, are feeding off of?

YES.

What part of that is “moving left”? DO you believe ANYTHING should be outside of the law? Like, I don’t know, our LIVES, for example? Our culture? Our society? Or should we just have a massive government that claims legal authority over every aspect of our lives - but hey, that’s okay, it would be good, because conservatives would decide what those government positions would be, so in that case the bigger the government, the better?

Do you even SEE the two different issues here?


25 posted on 03/20/2014 1:17:39 AM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I think the answer to the last is no. It’s an idee fixe you’re fighting. I’ve tried to do it too. The broken record keeps coming back to the same place.


26 posted on 03/20/2014 1:20:03 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Well then pray he doesn’t have the effect on people he’s trying to have.

This country is based on separating the concept of government, from the concept of society.

Obviously, liberals have completely rejected that idea - by definition.

But it is a seriously insidious act to apparently reject liberalism, while invoking the liberal collectivist mindset for supposedly conservative principles - all while claiming to do so to prevent a drift to the left.

In fact, that’s a three-letter-agency level of insidiousness, IMO.


27 posted on 03/20/2014 1:25:53 AM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

No, I don’t see accepting abortion and gay marriage and eliminating God, and all the other leftwing anti-American ism you are pushing.

You do not destroy the moral fabric of the nation, and get conservative voters out of it, you get more liberal voters, look at the change in voting for the last 50 years.

Rand is a Senator voting on federal law, and is running for president, gays in the military, abortion on federal lands, gay marriage in the military and in federal employment and in immigration are not “state” issues, they are issues of bigger and more costly federal government.

Are you even aware of those? Social liberals don’t care about such issues and will continue to allow the libertarian liberalism at the federal level.


28 posted on 03/20/2014 1:29:33 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I try to view the idea orthogonally to politics, through a gospel eye view.

I think we are way into the “trusting in princes” mode. Maybe our princes aren’t flouncing around in Hawaii several times a year unlike the Democrats’ prince, but they’re princes.

People have gotten used to all these princes taking care of their needs, even though they KNOW it’s a wasteful game.

I see the problem as needing to get rid of the princes. Of any kind. And to sell that, people will need to know there is a Lord who cares (and cares better) than the princes ever could.


29 posted on 03/20/2014 1:29:50 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

When found out, just blaspheme with a bunch of lies and misconceptions?? Somehow we got to engage this gaggle of princes we got (and are dancing back and forth between Republicans and Democrats) in banning this or that or the other immoral thing. And if we fail to ban it, why just accuse them of wanting it.


30 posted on 03/20/2014 1:31:49 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PaulCruz2016
It's not 1980/1984 any longer.

I agree wholeheartedly.

There's no such thing as "Reagan Democrats" anymore. Those people switched parties in 1980 and have been Republican ever since. The ones still alive, anyways. Half the people who voted for Reagan in 1980 are dead. The voters that replaced them have different values and attitudes on many social issues.

People here don't want to accept this. Some of them need to log off Free Republic once in a while and walk outside from time to time.

A guy like Rand Paul could win. A lot of younger voters are disenfranchised with Obama over the ACA and NSA. They won't vote for someone like Romney or McCain but they'll listen to what Paul has to say.

31 posted on 03/20/2014 1:33:09 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I can’t make sense of your strange and bizarre posts.


32 posted on 03/20/2014 1:33:15 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; Talisker

Your usual response when pinned down with inescapable logic.


33 posted on 03/20/2014 1:34:37 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

LOL, so you reject people wanting the smallest possible government - literally the mechanism by which America can be saved


That is the very reason i would vote libertarian, in fact if i thought they could win on their own ticket i would register a libertarian.


34 posted on 03/20/2014 2:08:04 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Romney sucked on multiple levels. His suck transcended party lines, religious lines, racial demographics, and political ideologies. It still ticks me off to no end that he managed to weasel his way into the nomination by splitting conservatives. Worst Republican candidate in my life time. That he lost to the obamunist is proof enough of that.


35 posted on 03/20/2014 2:32:03 AM PDT by RC one (Militarized law enforcement is just a nice way of saying martial law enforcement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

Rand is doing a great job of approaching demographic groups that are traditionally opposed to conservative ideology non-confrontationally. I think this is the right approach. Get them talking on issues that we agree on, get them to see the logic, and learn to think, then they will understand and eventually support the other issues. Instead of seeing us as the “rich white guys with guns”, they will understand that we are really the party of logic and analysis; it is our common values, Christian morality, and the focus on impact that leads us to our conservative positions rather than doing what feels good.


36 posted on 03/20/2014 3:45:09 AM PDT by LambSlave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis; Jim Robinson

“So far, Rand is the only potential nominee who may be able to poach votes from the dems with a message like this.”

DEMS are NOT going to vote for a Republican. Plus, Rand Paul isn’t even a REAL Republican. He is a Libertarian that calls himself a republican. He is DISHONEST when he sullies the Republican brand by running in a party he really doesn’t represent. Plus, those of you that are Paulistas need to can you pro-Paul propanganda - it is really getting old. Paul has NO PART of the REAL Republican party - the conservatives.

The “Reagan Democrats” you speak of were “SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES” that didn’t agree with the DEM slide towards increased liberalism. There is NO comparison between Ron Paul and President Reagan.

When will you Paulistas “grow up” and “go away.” You are like a “fifth column” sent to divide and destroy the GOP. We already have to deal with the GOP “Establishment”...now you fools are causing trouble and attempting to turn the GOP into a non-conservative party (a bunch of lawless Libertines = Libertarians).


37 posted on 03/20/2014 5:36:50 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LambSlave

“Rand is doing a great job of approaching demographic groups that are traditionally opposed to conservative ideology non-confrontationally. I think this is the right approach.”

Wrong, wrong, and wrong! He is trying to throw social/morale conservatism under the bus. Plus, he is a dangerous isolationist...not much better in foreign policy than Mr. Obama. HE DOES NOT BELONG IN THE GOP. HIS SUPPORTERS DO NOT BELONG IN THE GOP. He and you NEED TO SHUT UP AND GO AWAY.

Social/moral conservatives - like myself - will fight you to the death and seek out and destroy you for pushing this fraud (he is a LIBERTARIAN NOT A REPUBLICAN). Go join the Libertarian party IF you think Rand Paul is such a good thing, and STOP damaging the GOP conservatives.


38 posted on 03/20/2014 5:42:16 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“Social liberals don’t care about such issues and will continue to allow the libertarian liberalism at the federal level.”

Exactly, I consider social/moral liberals (like Libertarians - AKA Rand Paul) to be as ever bit as dangerous (or more so) to this country than Democrat Liberals. Plus, they are disrupting the GOP.


39 posted on 03/20/2014 5:46:09 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

“A guy like Rand Paul could win. A lot of younger voters are disenfranchised with Obama over the ACA and NSA. They won’t vote for someone like Romney or McCain but they’ll listen to what Paul has to say.”

At what cost? Having Rand Paul in office is NOT a real improvement over Mr. Obama. If you are saying the same idiots that listened to Mr. Obama will listen to Paul....you make the case that Paul should NOT be listened to.

We MUST keep the GOP as a social/morale conservative party first. Paul’s Libertarian views are wrong, wrong, wrong!


40 posted on 03/20/2014 5:50:29 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

Morale conservatism? You probably aren’t even Christian, just a RINO. I on the other hand am, and after Roe vs. Wade, I don’t want the Federal government to dictate what is morally acceptable behavior in my community. I want that to reside at the state level, where it should be. The only way to restore morality at the national level is make people face the consequences of sin, which means eliminate the welfare state, hence big goverment— a return to small goverment is the only way out. I will say and do what I please.


41 posted on 03/20/2014 6:57:58 AM PDT by LambSlave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

How is immigration part of social conservatism? Immigration is an economic issue more than anything else. If you’re basing opposition to illegal immigration on the Bible, please cite chapter and verse where Jesus would support such an idea.


42 posted on 03/20/2014 7:47:13 AM PDT by Lou Budvis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

What, *exactly* is a “dangerous isolationist?”

After three failed major wars and a dozen smaller expenditures of blood and treasure in the last 25 years, what would be so “dangerous” about isolationism?

It is what Geo. Washington offered as advice in his farewell address. It worked quite well for the American people until Ivy League professors-turned-presidents got us into WWI. Since then, we’ve been funnelling young men non-stop into wars for the benefit of other people, with huge amounts of money following.

At some point, people have to get their heads out of their rumps and realize that a) we’re broke and b) we’re broke. We can’t afford foreign adventure any more.


43 posted on 03/20/2014 8:27:28 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

“What, *exactly* is a ‘dangerous isolationist?’”

Rand Paul and obviously you are examples of dangerous isolationists. It was his type of idiocy that allowed Adolf Hitler and the Japanese to grow strong in the 30s.

Also, don’t you DARE deflame George Washington by quoting him. You do NOT understand what he meant....especially that it MUST be understood in the context of the time he spoke it.


44 posted on 03/20/2014 8:50:46 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LambSlave

“Morale conservatism? You probably aren’t even Christian, just a RINO.”

Read my “about” page.


45 posted on 03/20/2014 8:52:08 AM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

What allowed Japan and Nazi Germany to rise to power was the sort of stupid, academic-pollyanna view of the world arising after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles and the ruinous war reparations imposed on Germany brought about a person like Hitler, and, not to put too fine a point on it, also helped bring about the Great Depression. Post-WWI was gun control on a global scale, and Chicago shows how well that works on a city-wide scale. It doesn’t. Never has, never will.

I know quite well what Washington meant, and he meant it in terms of the sort of stupidity that got us into WWI. We should not have meddled in a war between a bunch of inbred cousin-humping monarchies in Europe. If Germany had actually induced Mexico to make a grab for the southwest again, then we would have had actual cause to get involved - to take over Mexico. But to get in the midst of the war between cousin-humpers? No. That’s exactly what Washington warned against: monarchies and cousin-humpers in Europe using the US to their own ends, for their own purposes, at our expense.

WWII happened as a result of the stupidity that arose after WWI, in particular, the “League of Nations” and all the idiotic academics that fawned over it... much as they do today over the UN.

I’ll repeat again, and this time I’ll type very slowly so you can understand it:

We’re broke.

We’re out of money. Even the idiots at the CBO have finally admitted this and are sounding the alarm. The Fed and IMF are awakening to the fact as well, and these are the clowns who helped bankrupt us. As a result of being broke, even if we elected a solid panel of war-mongering neo-cons to office, our actual financial ability to sustain the expenditures necessary for foreign adventures is now severely limited. Rand Paul and others like him realize this.

As an example, we’re pissing 10’s of billions down the rat-hole of the NSA and other snoopy agencies per year, raping the Constitution in the process, and yet none of these clowns could see the Boston Marathon bombings before they happened, despite the Russians handing the bombers to us on a silver platter. The NSA can’t point to a single terrorist plot against the US that they’ve foiled.

OK, so neo-cons warhawks like you might claim “well, the NSA was developed to spy on the Russians/USSR in the Cold War... they haven’t adapted yet to the new world threats.”

Very well then, why did the Russian incursions into Crimea and Ukraine come as a surprise to all in DC? The NSA should have seen that coming weeks ahead of time. The level of military planning and force organization necessary would have been available on tactical comm channels for weeks of moving men and material around to make those moves. Instead, we have all manner of clowns in Congress and the White House making prognostications that Russian won’t make the move, they’d be “insane” to make such a move... and the Russians don’t look so insane right now.

We’re now going to give up all the gains we made in Iraq and Afghanistan. All that money, all those lives, will have been for basically no net gain. Yes, we killed a lot of terrorists, but net:net, we’ve changed nothing geopolitically. The breeding ground for terrorism is growing more terrorists all the time, and the Muslim world thinks that we’re weak now.

We should go into wars with one objective: To win. Winning means that the enemy is defeated, crushed and has no more appetite for making hostile moves against us. That means killing lots of people - including civilians. Our political leadership no longer has the spine or resolve to do these things. In WWII, we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians with dry eyes and a clear purpose - of winning the war as fast as possible.

Winning in Iraq or Afghanistan would have required real slaughter - on a scale so large that Muslims the world over (1 billion and counting higher) look at the result and say “Hmmm. Well, we’d better not piss off those guys again. The Great Satan wears big boots and when he kicks ass, your ass stays kicked.” No, instead, we got into all manner of domestic squabbling about the scope of war, blah, blah, blah. We didn’t want to win - from the get-go, on both sides of the aisle. Bush/Cheney were talking about being seen as “liberators” and so on. Screw that. We weren’t seen as liberators when we marched into any other country after a war. The South didn’t see Grant or Sherman as “liberators” - but they sure as hell understood that those men meant business when they said “X is going to happen.”

If we’re not going to get into wars to win them, then it is best we stick to our knitting, maintain a strong defensive posture (like the Swiss, for example) and let the rest of the world see how it works without us. Sooner or later, they’ll decide that the UN is useless and the US comes back on the stage, or they’ll go back to killing each other en masse, in which case that leaves more resources for us. Either way, we win.


46 posted on 03/20/2014 9:34:39 AM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lou Budvis

What the heck was that about? Immigration and the Bible?

Rand is a Senator voting on federal law, and is running for president, gays in the military, abortion on federal lands, gay marriage in the military and in federal employment and in immigration are not “state” issues, they are issues of bigger and more costly federal government.


47 posted on 03/20/2014 10:29:31 AM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NVDave

“We’re broke.”

I have no problem raising taxes IF it is to STRICTLY pay for national defense. Of course, I would not agree to this IF the congress were to use it as a way to grow government outside of DoD.....and DoD needs close scrutiny that they are not wasting money on bureaucracy and bogus contracts. The money should go for personnel, materiel, etc. Stuff needed to actually train for and prosecute a war.

“If we’re not going to get into wars to win them, then....”

To that point I agree. IF a conflict is not worth total force...it probably is not worth pursuing. However, I also know there is the appropriate concept of proportionate response.

“....it is best we stick to our knitting, maintain a strong defensive posture (like the Swiss, for example) and let the rest of the world see how it works without us. Sooner or later, they’ll decide that the UN is useless and the US comes back on the stage, or they’ll go back to killing each other en masse, in which case that leaves more resources for us. Either way, we win.”

At this point you devolve into isolationist nonsense again with the wrong/naive conclusions.

BTW - I am NOT a NEOCON. I have mixed feelings about Iraq and Afghanistan. My main problem with them being that we allowed places we conquered (we didn’t liberate anything) set up Islamic states. That was an epic mistake. IF we are going to spread any “American” value...then the first one should be freedom of religion.


48 posted on 03/20/2014 12:00:40 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
The governor who gave America gay marriage, who had been running on homosexualizing the military and Boy Scouts since 1994, who was the most passionate...

I don't doubt you, but there's a huge difference between perception and reality and many people vote perception.

The perception was that Romney was a rich religious conservative and there were certainly some that voted against that perception.

Rand Paul is seen very differently and that's important.

49 posted on 03/20/2014 12:41:22 PM PDT by freerepublicchat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freerepublicchat

The perception was that Romney was an economics genius, an economy wiz, that was despised by the religious right that Christians wouldn’t vote for, and who had been Governor of Massachusetts and gave us Romneycare and gay marriage.

Romney won hugely among the Independents, the “new” voters.

Romney was the first nominee in history to win hugely among the independents, yet lose the race, and he did it in an election that we couldn’t lose.

Paul has also come out against conservatism.


50 posted on 03/20/2014 1:06:43 PM PDT by ansel12 ((Libertarianism offers the transitory concepts and dialogue to move from conservatism, to liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 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