PDA

View Full Version : Ky. Senate candidates debate in Louisville forum




RonPaulFanInGA
11-19-2009, 12:12 PM
http://www.syracuse.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/politics-13/125865120679380.xml&storylist=politics


LOUISVILLE, Ky. - U.S. Senate candidates have traded barbs while debating in a Louisville forum held in advance of next May's primary election.

Nine candidates took part in the forum Thursday sponsored by the Kentucky Association of Counties at the Galt House hotel.

Secretary of State Trey Grayson and Bowling Green eye surgeon Rand Paul, who are both Republicans, had a testy exchange on the issue of Guantanamo Bay. Grayson claimed that Paul on his Web site supported the closure of Guantanamo Bay. Paul retorted that Grayson needs to learn how to read.

winston_blade
11-19-2009, 12:27 PM
HAhahaha. That was good.

Icymudpuppy
11-19-2009, 12:30 PM
I disagree with Rand on his Guantanamo stance. I think it should be shut down. If we have enough evidence to bring them to trial, let's get the trials under way, innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If we don't have enough evidence to bring the inmates to trial, they should be released, profusely apologized to, and compensated for the years we wasted according to the pay they would have earned at their last known job.

0zzy
11-19-2009, 12:31 PM
Well, he isn't Ron Paul, that's for sure!


“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”


debate this you hardcore fans. I bet you will no longer support the man.

Dreamofunity
11-19-2009, 12:41 PM
Any tubes?

Slutter McGee
11-19-2009, 02:06 PM
Well, he isn't Ron Paul, that's for sure!

.”


debate this you hardcore fans. I bet you will no longer support the man.

What a ridiciulous over simplification of the issue. Lets look at this from a consitutional perspective. They were not arrested by police forces. They were not read miranda rights. Not given due process. And were not given the right to a lawyer.

So what do we do with them? We can keep detaining them, as Bush did under the term enemy combatants. We can try them in civil court, as Obama is doing, which also could set dangerous precedent for limits on our consitutional rights. Or we can try them in military court for war crimes. This allows interrogation beforehand, and due process under the law. They are after all, at war with us.

This is the only common sense thing to do, and Rand knows that.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

0zzy
11-19-2009, 02:08 PM
What a ridiciulous over simplification of the issue. Lets look at this from a consitutional perspective. They were not arrested by police forces. They were not read miranda rights. Not given due process. And were not given the right to a lawyer.

So what do we do with them? We can keep detaining them, as Bush did under the term enemy combatants. We can try them in civil court, as Obama is doing, which also could set dangerous precedent for limits on our consitutional rights. Or we can try them in military court for war crimes. This allows interrogation beforehand, and due process under the law. They are after all, at war with us.

This is the only common sense thing to do, and Rand knows that.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

But some supporters here will be deeply upset with it. Judge Napalitano himself probably would be too. i think :X.

Slutter McGee
11-19-2009, 02:21 PM
But some supporters here will be deeply upset with it. Judge Napalitano himself probably would be too. i think :X.

Your right, some will be upset. People often say that the constitution is simple. black and white. Even as a strict constructionist, I think we have to agree that its not always that simple. When liberties have been violated, justice cannot always be found. Sometimes you have to take the constitutional approach that will most limit the potential for abuse of liberties in the same way in the future. I think that what Rand says is our best option.

Slutter McGee

Kevin_Kennedy
11-19-2009, 02:22 PM
I support closing Guantanamo and trying them. Whether it's military tribunal or civilian court isn't a big deal to me, but I don't think we should be holding these people indefinitely and without a trial.

Austin
11-19-2009, 02:37 PM
Thank you Rand. Good to see you actually plan on winning this race. :)

I look forward to seeing you filibuster on CSPAN a little over a year from now.

Ethek
11-19-2009, 02:53 PM
Purists need to check some elietism at the door here. Keep your principles and a philosophy of liberty with you, but Rand has some work to do. I say support him or step back and refocus somewhere else for the time being. Rand will be accountable later on.

0zzy
11-19-2009, 02:59 PM
well hot damn i've been googling for god knows how long and I can't find any videos or pictures or news articles! GIVE ME WHAT I WANT GOOGLE!

Austin
11-19-2009, 03:07 PM
well hot damn i've been googling for god knows how long and I can't find any videos or pictures or news articles! GIVE ME WHAT I WANT GOOGLE!

My guess is that the old web admins (they have since found new web guys) posted the article thinking it reflected Rand's opinion. After Rand was informed of the article being posted on the web site, he had the article removed. Perhaps this is the reason they changed web teams? Web admins imposing their own beliefs onto Rand's candidacy is a big no-no.

Good to see that we have a fantastic web team now. :D ;)

freedoms-light
11-19-2009, 03:38 PM
Don't know for sure if I'm accessing a cached copy, but I found this:





http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/

freedoms-light
11-19-2009, 03:42 PM
I think for every supporter he will lose on this he will gain several, though I doubt they will be, on average, of the same caliber.

0zzy
11-19-2009, 03:44 PM
I think for every supporter he will lose on this he will gain several, though I doubt they will be, on average, of the same caliber.

well, most voters are not in tune with our message. most voters are in tune with what he is currently saying basically.

silverhandorder
11-19-2009, 03:53 PM
I don't get this. So our military can just grab anyone off the street claim they are a terrorist and have their way with that person. I understand why Rand said that but to me this is troubling. I want him to win really bad. I am very concerned about economy. However I am just as concerned about the checks on military.

sofia
11-19-2009, 03:56 PM
Well, he isn't Ron Paul, that's for sure!

.”


debate this you hardcore fans. I bet you will no longer support the man.

Playing the game of politics is one thing...but Rand is starting to sound like a sellout now.

These "thugs" were tortured into confession.

I'm very disappointed in Rand.

0zzy
11-19-2009, 03:58 PM
Playing the game of politics is one thing...but Rand is starting to sound like a sellout now.

These "thugs" were tortured into confession.

I'm very disappointed in Rand.

he never said he supported torture. Supporting people to be tried by military tribunals and have them detained outside the US does NOT mean "we should be able to torture them."

comon now.

Chieftain1776
11-19-2009, 04:13 PM
Well, he isn't Ron Paul, that's for sure!

.”


debate this you hardcore fans. I bet you will no longer support the man.

I don't think the "hard core fans" on RPF really help Rand's or even Ron Paul's political success. I personally agree with Rand on foreign terrorists and lean towards the Michael Scheuer view on torture. I don't think there is an orthodoxy on the issue. I'm still a non-interventionist and against the Patriot Act but terrorists captured on foreign lands don't merit constitutional protection in my opinion.

Also I'm willing to give Rand the chance to vote (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=218615) on the issues and even if he does do something like support the Patriot Act during the campaign I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt during the campaign and write it off as pandering.

TruthisTreason
11-19-2009, 04:16 PM
and even if he does do something like support the Patriot Act during the campaign

Not going to happen.;)

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-19-2009, 04:19 PM
well, most voters are not in tune with our message. most voters are in tune with what he is currently saying basically.

Hey, Status Quo! Democracy, The God That Has Failed.

If they reject our message, then so be it. There is no room for compromise on our positions. It's obvious Rand is not in the same vein of libertarianism as his father. Look what compromising did with the Foundation of this country. They could have confronted the slavery issue, but they were more enamored with a "Union" (Euphemism for power) than principles, and this is the fault I give to Thomas Jefferson.....his only fault, even though he tried numerous times to outlaw slavery, and did free his slaves..Still...

I don't think you are trying to justify his stances or anything, but I have to keep pounding this over and over. If we lose our principles we lose our message. There is no purpose in winning if we only abandon everything we stand for in the process. Think Alan Greenspan. Do we want to be Alan Greenspan, or do we want to be Ludwig Von Mises?

Slutter McGee
11-19-2009, 04:30 PM
I would rather compromise in the hope of growing my liberty, than stand firm in the knowledge that I will have none.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-19-2009, 04:33 PM
I would rather compromise in the hope of growing my liberty, than stand firm in the knowledge that I will have none.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I would rather die fighting for my liberty, rather than compromising and kicking the can down the road for someone else to fight in my place.

Sincerely,

Austrian Econ Disciple

0zzy
11-19-2009, 04:35 PM
Hey, Status Quo! Democracy, The God That Has Failed.

If they reject our message, then so be it. There is no room for compromise on our positions. It's obvious Rand is not in the same vein of libertarianism as his father. Look what compromising did with the Foundation of this country. They could have confronted the slavery issue, but they were more enamored with a "Union" (Euphemism for power) than principles, and this is the fault I give to Thomas Jefferson.....his only fault, even though he tried numerous times to outlaw slavery, and did free his slaves..Still...

I don't think you are trying to justify his stances or anything, but I have to keep pounding this over and over. If we lose our principles we lose our message. There is no purpose in winning if we only abandon everything we stand for in the process. Think Alan Greenspan. Do we want to be Alan Greenspan, or do we want to be Ludwig Von Mises?

cept what I'm saying is, I think he generally believes we should try them in Gitmo, he doesn't believe in torture. I don't think he should exclusively pander to Paul supporters if it's against his thinking, because he is working to get the vote of the Kentucky voters.

Cowlesy
11-19-2009, 04:36 PM
Well I assume this is why Rand has always been a Republican, because he could never run as a Libertarian since he parts ways with them on several issues.

That's part of the reason why I find it humorous Trey, Nate and Ole Pancakes try and make him out to be something he's not, which is some radical Libertarian.

For some, we must agree on everything. I don't agree with everything Walter Jones says, but he believes in a lot of things I do, so I contribute to his campaign. Rand's election is going to be a quantum leap for constitutional conservatism in the Congress.

TruthisTreason
11-19-2009, 04:40 PM
There are two different paths to liberty: Education and Political Action.


Stick to what you are best at!

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-19-2009, 04:45 PM
cept what I'm saying is, I think he generally believes we should try them in Gitmo, he doesn't believe in torture. I don't think he should exclusively pander to Paul supporters if it's against his thinking, because he is working to get the vote of the Kentucky voters.

I don't want anyone pandering to me. I want people who believe in the maximization of liberty on all fronts. If they do not, and carry the gravitas of the Paul lineage then I will criticize when criticism is due. If we do not light the fires underneath those that have more inclination to our idea's than anyone else, then we have no cause unto which we are fighting for. If we are so meek as to cloud our judgements based on the conception of "winning", but not winning for any such principled stand in the maximization of liberty, than it is indeed a defeat, not a victory.

Yes, Rand is not Ron, that much is certain. Will I stop donating based on this statement? That is something I will consider in the coming weeks. I certainly do not agree with him on his version of "Strong National Defense". Do I blindly support Warren Buffet, because he carries the lineage of Howard Buffet? Hell no.

PS: Do you honestly believe these men are going to get the due process of law (Fair trial) in Gitmo? Every individual has the right to a fair trial, otherwise the very definition of a trial is nullified. It then becomes a masquerade and defeats the purpose it is set up for. If the State cannot even bring to bear the evidence of guilt, then therefore isn't the man innocent? Since when do we condemn innocent men at the behest of the State? While I believe that Rand believes in the latter, I think the former is a condemnation of his judgement. Did the Nuremburg trials take place in Germany, or did they take place in South Africa?

I think taken as the whole -- his comment on Foreign Policy / National Defense, coupled with this -- gives me pause. We will see in the coming weeks and months...Again, I have to remind you that I'm a staunch Rothbardian, so take that as you will.

Slutter McGee
11-19-2009, 04:48 PM
I would rather die fighting for my liberty, rather than compromising and kicking the can down the road for someone else to fight in my place.

Sincerely,

Austrian Econ Disciple

And I would rather not die for my liberty, until other options have at least been attempted.

Besides, I compromised when I voted and supported Ron Paul. I am pro-death penalty. He is not. I do not support the legalization of drugs in my state, but believe in my states right to decide outside of federal influence. I am pro-choice.

I compromised. Now will you attempt to tell me I would have been better off supporting only politicians who agreed with me on everything. That by voting for Dr. Paul I violated my principles?

Lets try to win this thing, rather than relegating ourselves to the world of lower academia.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-19-2009, 04:53 PM
And I would rather not die for my liberty, until other options have at least been attempted.

Besides, I compromised when I voted and supported Ron Paul. I am pro-death penalty. He is not. I do not support the legalization of drugs in my state, but believe in my states right to decide outside of federal influence. I am pro-choice.

I compromised. Now will you attempt to tell me I would have been better off supporting only politicians who agreed with me on everything. That by voting for Dr. Paul I violated my principles?

Lets try to win this thing, rather than relegating ourselves to the world of lower academia.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

From reading that I'm not sure what principles you have. Surely, you do not believe in NAP or Natural Law. However, it sounds like you are a Federalist. So if that is your inclination then vote that way. I however, will not compromise my positions. Having come to this decision through careful deliberation and reading through history.

If you want to come along for different reasons, then great! However, I will criticize when you fail to continue on the path of liberty and will not hesitate to point it out. Do you want the maximization of liberty on all fronts? This is the question you must ask yourself.

Imperial
11-19-2009, 05:01 PM
Owww... and Im doing a speech in a couple days in front of hundreds of people on why Gitmo should be closed down...

I'll still support the bid, but this is really disappointing.

t0rnado
11-19-2009, 05:02 PM
“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Replace "Dr. Paul" will "Sean Hannity" or "Bill O'Reilly" and we would have members calling them neo-cons and traitors. It might not sound as fucking stupid if Rand Paul had said that before dozens of Guantanamo Bay detainees were found to be innocent and sent back to their countries, but he said it today.

We would see posts stating that the British referred to the Sons of Liberty as "foreign terrorists", "thugs" if Sarah Palin had said this.

Rand Paul made himself look like an idiot by making those statements.

silverhandorder
11-19-2009, 05:04 PM
Wtf do we do about this :(.

itshappening
11-19-2009, 05:07 PM
Replace "Dr. Paul" will "Sean Hannity" or "Bill O'Reilly" and we would have members calling them neo-cons and traitors. It might not sound as fucking stupid if Rand Paul had said that before dozens of Guantanamo Bay detainees were found to be innocent and sent back to their countries, but he said it today.

We would see posts stating that the British referred to the Sons of Liberty as "foreign terrorists", "thugs" if Sarah Palin had said this.

Rand Paul made himself look like an idiot by making those statements.

Not in the eyes of the Republican voters, who he needs to win the race

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-19-2009, 05:09 PM
Not in the eyes of the Republican voters, who he needs to win the race

This sounds as if someone is blinded to the Paul name. Face it, Rand is not Ron!

itshappening
11-19-2009, 05:12 PM
This sounds as if someone is blinded to the Paul name. Face it, Rand is not Ron!

Rand is running statewide, Ron runs in a district that he has served for decades (both as congressman and doctor). To win statewide is a not easy and he needs to appeal to the many Republicans in all those counties...

t0rnado
11-19-2009, 05:12 PM
Not in the eyes of the Republican voters, who he needs to win the race

It would be hilarious if he lost. He would have whored himself out to Republican voters for nothing.

Brett
11-19-2009, 05:16 PM
This sounds as if someone is blinded to the Paul name. Face it, Rand is not Ron!

Yet the more I listen to both I prefer Rand.

I disagree with him on this issue, but I'll get over it. He's much more likely to introduce, sponsor and talk about bills that we agree with, even if in the back of his mind there are a few views not 100% Libertarian/Liberty.

Malachi
11-19-2009, 05:16 PM
Face it, Rand is not Ron!

Face it, Ron isn't always right! ;)

And not everyone in our movement are Ron Paul clones, congrads if you are!

itshappening
11-19-2009, 05:17 PM
It would be hilarious if he lost. He would have whored himself out to Republican voters for nothing.

For nothing? he's leading in the polls and looking like a winner, he has to keep that up because the Republicans want to feel comfortable with Rand especially when it comes to them putting an X next to his name, they want to hear this and much more..

That doesn't mean he will sell out the core message but he has to win the mainstream vote if he's going to win the primary

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-19-2009, 05:21 PM
Face it, Ron isn't always right! ;)

And not everyone in our movement are Ron Paul clones, congrads if you are!

I certainly disagree with Ron about a lot of things, but at least he is an Austrian! (And talks and acts positively towards Anarcho-Capitalism, however, there are Federalist tendencies I strongly disagree with Paul on) If it was apt to call me anything it would be a Rothbard clone, but even then I disagree with him on certain things! For you see, if there is an accurate descriptor, you can call me a NAP, Natural Law, Laissez-Faire clone. I take pride in that. :p

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-19-2009, 05:23 PM
That doesn't mean he will sell out the core message but he has to win the mainstream vote if he's going to win the primary

If that isn't the definition of a contradiction I don't know what is! :rolleyes:

TheTyke
11-19-2009, 05:25 PM
You should realize that most candidates running are part of the establishment... despite the differences in rhetoric between say, Huckabee and Giulliani, they will promote the same agenda. If Rand were part of that group, with all the support he's getting, McConnell would be supporting HIM, not the lazy clerk from Frankfort. Ironically, we see many of "our own" helping McConnell and the establishment by tearing Rand to shreds over every detail of rhetoric they don't like - and may or may not even understand. I guess this will never end... but....

Foreign policy is one of my main issues, and I will insist:

I've met Rand, and I trust him. He will be a senator unlike any we've had in many decades. This is a prize worth fighting for.

georgiaboy
11-19-2009, 05:29 PM
+1^^

silverhandorder
11-19-2009, 05:39 PM
I think the only consolation to me is that Rand is anti war. If it was up to rand we would not be nation building and such. So to me it seems like a compromise. I still can't agree to it tho.

low preference guy
11-19-2009, 05:43 PM
apparently Rand is going to be a libertarian that can appeal to the neocons and Glenn Beck. but he will still be good because he won't vote for war or nation building, as someone else mentioned above. how we treat terrorists doesn't really matter when there are no terrorists, which would be the consequence of the non-interventionist foreign policy Rand supports.

RonPaulFanInGA
11-19-2009, 05:49 PM
This sounds as if someone is blinded to the Paul name. Face it, Rand is not Ron!

Face it: Rand Paul is slightly leading in the polls precisely because he's running as the constitutional conservative he is and not as the Losertarian some here want him to run as...and isn't even who Rand is.

Rand Paul is also anti-PATRIOT act and anti-torture too. Why do I doubt any of Grayson, Conway or Mongiardo can say the same?

Flash
11-19-2009, 05:57 PM
As a fan of Pat Buchanan and a supporter of Senators like Jim DeMint, I can honestly say I like Rand Paul. I would classify myself as Libertarian-Conservative and agree with Rand on most issues.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-19-2009, 06:32 PM
Face it: Rand Paul is slightly leading in the polls precisely because he's running as the constitutional conservative he is and not as the Losertarian some here want him to run as...and isn't even who Rand is.

Rand Paul is also anti-PATRIOT act and anti-torture too. Why do I doubt any of Grayson, Conway or Mongiardo can say the same?

I wonder, would he support the abolition of standing armies during peace-time? The Constitution is clear in this area. What about income taxation? What about a National Bank? What about monetary policy? Is he Hayekian?

Look, there are many problems with the Constitution, that I never hear ANY so-called Constitutionalist talk about. I'm left to wonder if Constitutionalists even understand the principles behind the Constitution albeit flawed in its premise (Gunny gives me hope though!). I've brought this up numerous times. If he is a Constitutionalist then would he support measures to amend the Constitution to clarify certain clauses and amendments? For example explicitly stating to change the second amendment to: No law shall be made that infringes on the right of the individual to purchase, carry, conceal, trade, barter, conduct commerce in regards to any good used for self-defense. I could go on and on. Right now the Courts are by no means co-equal. Secondly, can he point to the clause in the Constitution that grants him the authority to fight our enemies (Whoever they are), without a precise declaration of war? Of course he would support one with Afghanistan, but the terrorists that attacked us weren't even Afghani. So who are these illusory enemies? You see, the Constitution cannot tackle this problem. The Constitution does not lay out our Foreign Policy in descript terms. It doesn't sound as if Rand is a strict non-interventionist.....like I said, time will tell.

While I have no objections to returning to a strict Constitutional sense (And then I'll part ways and fight to maximize liberty even more), even Ron Paul misses a few Constructionist points to the Constitution. I guess our armed services are some voodoo topic....

Oh by the way, Ad Hominem's don't work with me. I'm not insecure in my beliefs and my whole reason to be involved in politics doesn't revolve around the unprincipled "winning" or "losing" brings to the table. But, hey, you love Democracy, or at least a derivation of it, so don't go complaining when you lose.

RonPaulFanInGA
11-19-2009, 06:48 PM
and my whole reason to be involved in politics doesn't revolve around the unprincipled "winning" or "losing" brings to the table.

Doesn't matter. Losers get absolutely nothing in politics.

Austrian Econ Disciple
11-19-2009, 07:18 PM
Doesn't matter. Losers get absolutely nothing in politics.

Because once the policies completely crumble the electorate body isn't going to go looking for solutions that were predicated on our positions. Why do you think Ron Paul was so successful in 08? Of course the economic meltdown and the predictive nature had nothing to do with it. Once they come to terms with reality, then you slowly coax them into strong liberty supporters. I'm not here to compromise, and compromise doesn't work. Neither does bi-partisanship, or other terms that you have to compromise your principles to get a watered down version of.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know the policies will fail. I can yell from the top of my lungs. Sure, maybe hardly anyone listens now and scoffs like they did with Schiff, but once the wool is pulled from their eyes they come around. Perhaps one day, you will learn that the debauchery of your principles does not advance liberty. Cheers.

sofia
11-19-2009, 07:40 PM
An INNOCENT man was repeatedly tortured, and then forced to watch his son be tortured.......just so he would "confess" to being "the mastermind" of 911.

If we have to go along with the circus military trial and execution of Kalid Sheik Mohammed in order to get Rand elected by a bunch of neo-con rubes ....then it's not worth it.

I don't want this man's blood on my hands just so Rand can appease the neo-cons. I will not be an accessory to murder just so Rand can get a few rednecks to vote for him.

I am deeply disillusioned about this. His dad would never go for this.

klamath
11-19-2009, 07:43 PM
I have mixed feeling on the Gitmo issue. It is a messy issue because a war was never declared. In a war there are POW's and they are not given the same rights as US citizens. They are captured on a battlefield and detained until they are exchanged. Their crime was they were fighting for the enemy but are never tried as such but are released at the end of the war. The geneva convention covers this. What is messed up about this war is it is set up to be a never ending war in which there is never an end to hostilities. In a war you cannot release POW's that you know full well turn against you until the war has ended and they can be released to their home countries.
There has never been a war fought that POW's were not taken and if there wasn't any then we don't even want to think about what kind of rights and inhuman acts took place in that war.
The main issue is we need to end the never ending war so we can clear up the Gitmo mess.

0zzy
11-19-2009, 07:52 PM
An INNOCENT man was repeatedly tortured, and then forced to watch his son be tortured.......just so he would "confess" to being "the mastermind" of 911.

If we have to go along with the circus military trial and execution of Kalid Sheik Mohammed in order to get Rand elected by a bunch of neo-con rubes ....then it's not worth it.

I don't want this man's blood on my hands just so Rand can appease the neo-cons. I will not be an accessory to murder just so Rand can get a few rednecks to vote for him.

I am deeply disillusioned about this. His dad would never go for this.

who said Rand supported torture?

sofia
11-19-2009, 07:58 PM
who said Rand supported torture?

He supports Khalid being tried by military tribunal instead. If that happens, Khalid will be hanged based upon his phony "confession."

Rand is turning a blind eye to this man's plight. He may not be an American, but he is a human being that was tortured into confessing. That shit aint right.

itshappening
11-19-2009, 08:00 PM
He supports Khalid being tried by military tribunal instead. If that happens, Khalid will be hanged based upon his phony "confession."

Rand is turning a blind eye to this man's plight. He may not be an American, but he is a human being that was tortured into confessing. That shit aint right.

it might not be right but there is plenty of precedent supporting it

TCE
11-19-2009, 08:13 PM
This is definitely troubling. However, I still support him at this time. Some points after reading this thread:

* Rand has stated numerous times that he will fight to get a declaration of war against Afghanistan. He has never gone beyond that, but he has said he will support nothing until a declaration of war is made.

* There is no inclination that Rand supports torture. I may have heard him say that he is against it, but I can't remember the source, so take that with a grain of salt.

* He isn't Ron. He campaigns much better than his dad ever could, but he has some very different rhetoric. He may be trying to create such a divide between him and his father that the standard "he's a Libertarian nut just like Ron" cannot even be used because of their differing views.

Basically: This troubles me. I am a believer in natural rights and Gitmo does not provide for these rights being respected. At the current time, however, I will still support Rand unless he states a few other views that I'm not too fond of.

bolidew
11-19-2009, 08:33 PM
He is not Ron Paul, and that's bad news.

TCE
11-19-2009, 08:41 PM
He is not Ron Paul, and that's bad news.

It's more bad news to the general populace of RPF than it is to the average Republican Primary Voter.

RonPaulFanInGA
11-19-2009, 08:51 PM
He is not Ron Paul, and that's bad news.

How so? Ron Paul got 6.79% of the vote in Kentucky in 2008.

Nathan Hale
11-19-2009, 09:24 PM
An INNOCENT man was repeatedly tortured, and then forced to watch his son be tortured.......just so he would "confess" to being "the mastermind" of 911.

If we have to go along with the circus military trial and execution of Kalid Sheik Mohammed in order to get Rand elected by a bunch of neo-con rubes ....then it's not worth it.

I don't want this man's blood on my hands just so Rand can appease the neo-cons. I will not be an accessory to murder just so Rand can get a few rednecks to vote for him.

I am deeply disillusioned about this. His dad would never go for this.

Could you please corroborate your story about the innocent man, his son, the torture, and the confession?

vrichins
11-20-2009, 07:30 AM
There are two different paths to liberty: Education and Political Action.


Stick to what you are best at!

Does political action mean pandering? I think we will obtain liberty when the people demand it. My advice to Rand Paul: Be careful. This is not an ordinary race. He is not an ordinary candidate. People all over the country are pinning their hopes on him, because they see him as someone with the guts to stand up for principle.

That being said, I don't think he is pandering in this case. And it's good that Rand is focusing on the issues that matter to the people. Eventually, though, Rand will have to explain his positions a little more. And I hope to be there when he does.

TruthisTreason
11-20-2009, 07:55 AM
Does political action mean pandering?

Successful political action means winning!