Bill O'Really and Rand Paul Video

[catdd]

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Interviews Rand Paul - 05/19/10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgWRatbbOZM)

[Pacis]

Ugh, I turned off the video within the first two minutes of the interview. Ron Paul remains the only politician I like. His son doesn't appeal to me at all.

[Fredom101]

Rand is in favor of using force against Iran. :(

I turned off the video right when he started talking about how he agreed with O'Reilly that we should do everything "we" can to stop Iran from getting a nuke. Yuck. :(

[catdd]

It's pretty disheartening, but I bet the TP wouldn't support him any other way.

[purplechoe]

Rand is in favor of using force against Iran. :(

I turned off the video right when he started talking about how he agreed with O'Reilly that we should do everything "we" can to stop Iran from getting a nuke. Yuck. :(

Watch the rest, I'm someone who has been critical of Rand in the past about certain things in his foreign policy. He basically just said that we should keep every option on the table and not announce our strategy... We should hold his feet to the fire that he sticks to the liberty message, but I'll save my criticism till he's in office and actually votes and speeks about these issues in more concrete terms...

[sofia]

good grief!

wtf???

Iran has threatened no one and Rand says he's open to military action????...why doesnt he challenge OReilly's lies about WMD????

when will Rand's ass-kissing of the neo-con right end???? He just won by 25 points!!!

very disappointing...

[awake]

He is running as a Tea Party candidate and he is a politician - he needs the TP sail. His positions on a few issues are rough to my ears to say the least.

I hope he ripens well once on the senate floor, otherwise democracy has claimed another brave sole.

[catdd]

He is running as a Tea Party candidate and he is politician - he needs the TP sail. His positions on a few issues are rough to my ears to say the least.

I hope he ripens well once on the senate floor, otherwise democracy has claimed another brave sole.

Well put, I was trying to think of a way to say that.

[Distinguished Gentleman]

Not looking unacceptable on O'reiily is worth more than a huge add buy. His answers were what they needed to be without being dishonest.

[BLS]

Some of you people are unrealistic.

You know they have a term for people who believe in an utopian society.

It's called Liberalism.

[purplechoe]

http://cdn.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2008/05/bill_o_reilly_goes_nuts_.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y3kvcN9EQgw/Sd5IVezENDI/AAAAAAAAAxs/RIK49BO6r74/s400/MacSociopath2.JPG

[Romulus]

He's working it, folks. Let him win, dont shoot ourselves in the foot.

the game is chess, not checkers.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Meh, he took the usual "dont want to lose my base" stance, which is "keep it on the table"

Has it occurred to any of you though, that maybe Rand actually supports foreign intervention?

[purplechoe]

Has it occurred to any of you though, that maybe Rand actually supports foreign intervention?

Yes... :(

[Slutter McGee]

Meh, he took the usual "dont want to lose my base" stance, which is "keep it on the table"

Has it occurred to any of you though, that maybe Rand actually supports foreign intervention?

Who fucking cares. As long as he does not support nation building. I don't want Iran to get a fucking nuke. No fucking way.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Kotin]

Not looking unacceptable on O'reiily is worth more than a huge add buy. His answers were what they needed to be without being dishonest.

This..


Hey guys remember this is a campaign??!! Dear lord, think for a second.. You think I want to hear that?? Well I don't, but he has to say it.. He is doing exactly what he should be doing.. So unless he actually votes to bomb Iran, chill the fuck out.

[JK/SEA]

the game is chess, not checkers.


Yep. Ever keep someone in check for 3-4 moves, then go in for the kill with your Knight?....:D

[Legend1104]

This is obiviously one of those areas that Ron Paul said was a difference between the two. Maybe he is fudging his beliefs, maybe not. I think I would rather he be telling the truth. I am tired of lyers. Dr. (Ron) Paul proves that you can get elected by telling the truth, even if it is not popular. Most of the time people prefer someone that tells the truth that has different beliefs than a lyer that will tell you anything. Look at the election of Thomas Jefferson. It was his political enemy Hamilton that helped get him elected. He really hated Burr (Jefferson's opponent) and said of Jefferson, "At least he is honest." Hopefully, Paul's beliefs are firm in the other areas for liberty.

[Romulus]

People are wigging out here..

[sofia]

There are millions of INNOCENT Iranians who may be dead one day soon....dead because very few people in America are SPEAKING out against the LIES being told about the Iranian nation and WMD's....

If these lies are not CHALLENGED by public figures such as Rand Paul...then their deaths (as well as many deaths of US troops) become more likely....and rest on our hands.

Imagine its 2011....and the mother of a dead Iranian child asks Rand Paul supporters why our guy did not speak out against the lies that led to such an atrocity.....we can tell her...."Chill out lady. He had to play to the base."

Fuck that!!!!. I'd rather live under debt laden socialism than have the blood of a million innocent Persians on my hands!

[silentshout]

Yuck...but then again, I am not surprised. Makes me sad, though.

Also, I don't like his stance on abortion by banning it federally..I agree with Ron that it should be left to the states and not a federal issue. However, the foreign policy issue is much more important to me right now and I don't like what I am hearing so far. But I don't live in KY so it doesn't really matter anyway.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

People just need to realize Rand wont be Ron Paul 2.0. At best your going to get someone who while fight for economic liberty and shrinking the government.......but from the looks of it Rand will be moderate on foreign military intervention and hawkish on social issues.

[ClayTrainor]

ugh... depressing shit.

Ron Paul is truly one of a kind.

[tsai3904]

First of all, any country having a nuclear weapon is a threat to the stability of the world due to the simple fact that a nuclear weapon can cause so much damage. The US having nuclear weapons destabilizes the world. So when he says that Iran having a nuclear weapon would destabilize the Middle East, how can you not agree with that? Iran has stated that it would only pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and that it has no intentions to pursue nuclear weapons.

Now, if Iran developed nuclear weapons, people would want the US to act. All Rand Paul said was that he does not want to take military actions off the table in the situation that Iran has a nuclear weapon. Not wanting to take military action off the table does not mean that he is in favor of military action. He just stated that he does not want the US to announce what we would or would not do in certain situations. Rand Paul has never stated that he wants or is open to attacking Iran.

The only specific policy he has stated is that he does not want the US to subsidize companies doing business in Iran, which is understandable since this would be his position regarding companies doing business in any country.

[Griffith]

I'd rather he just said Israel has 300 nukes but that's me. At least he's spot-on with his economic views. He's a Paul alright!

[awake]

The United States holds the brutal distinction of actually using nuclear weapons and wiping out hundreds of thousands in a moment..

No one wants to make this painfully obvious point, but there it is. The U.S. has no moral authority to speak of on this issue, let alone dictate which countries can develop nuclear capabilities.

[ClayTrainor]

The United States holds the brutal distinction of actually using nuclear weapons and wiping out hundreds of thousands in a moment..

No one wants make this painfully obvious point, but there it is. The U.S. Has no moral authority to speak of on this issue.

Great point.

[sofia]

why is it that japanese kamikazes are considered "fanatics" for giving their lives to defend their country....

but the Texans at the Alamo are considered heroes for fighting a no-win battle rather than surrendering?


...are both groups heroic? What's the difference between what they did?

[ClayTrainor]

why is it that japanese kamikazes are considered "fanatics" for giving their lives to defend their country....

but the Texans at the Alamo are considered heroes for fighting a no-win battle rather than surrendering?


...are both groups heroic? What's the difference between what they did?

Heroism definitely isn't the right word, imo. One group chose to admit defeat and walk away with their lives, the other didn't. Both were desperate and had very limited options.

[BlackTerrel]

First of all, any country having a nuclear weapon is a threat to the stability of the world due to the simple fact that a nuclear weapon can cause so much damage. The US having nuclear weapons destabilizes the world. So when he says that Iran having a nuclear weapon would destabilize the Middle East, how can you not agree with that?

Thank you. Countries that already have nukes are never giving them up. The more countries that get nukes the worse off we all are. Not that complex.


Now, if Iran developed nuclear weapons, people would want the US to act. All Rand Paul said was that he does not want to take military actions off the table in the situation that Iran has a nuclear weapon. Not wanting to take military action off the table does not mean that he is in favor of military action. He just stated that he does not want the US to announce what we would or would not do in certain situations.

Why would you tell people exactly what you are going to do? It's called being smart. No options are off the table.

I can't say I disagree with anything that Rand says. It's sad that so soon after such a big victory people here are attacking him. I was still in celebratory mode.

[catdd]

The Indians have always complained that when they won battles they were called massacres while the Army's were declared great victories.

[ClayTrainor]

The Indians have always complained that when they won battles they were called massacres while the Army's were declared great victories.

Yup. Eye of the Beholder

911 was Terrorism, but the US Military blowing up buildings in other countries is considered Fighting Terrorism, to most americans.

[Mini-Me]

Thank you. Countries that already have nukes are never giving them up. The more countries that get nukes the worse off we all are. Not that complex.



Why would you tell people exactly what you are going to do? It's called being smart. No options are off the table.

I can't say I disagree with anything that Rand says. It's sad that so soon after such a big victory people here are attacking him. I was still in celebratory mode.

Actually, it would be MUCH wiser for the US to tell other countries, in no uncertain terms, "We will not preemptively attack you." When the most powerful country in the world keeps volatile and erratic behavior (like preemptive war) on the table, it's not a stabilizing element in world politics. It puts everyone else on edge and makes them more volatile and unpredictable in turn...and a lot more eager to find a way to take out or neutralize the superpowered loosecannon, for their own safety. If we changed our foreign policy visibly and believably to take preemptive war off the table, this would ease tensions all over the world. Countries like Iran would lose a lot of the nervousness that might otherwise lead them to rash decisions, like rushing to obtain nukes for defensive leverage, or freaking out and hitting "the button" (or giving it to a terrorist) when they think they're about to be attacked. After all, no other country on the planet is stupid enough to preemptively attack us (or give a nuke to a terrorist) unless they already thought we were planning on going to war with them. Attacking the US would be a suicidal move of desperation for anyone.

In a game where everyone can lose at once, the "nothing is off the table" policy is not the policy of a crafty chessmaster; it's the policy of an idiot who can't think more than one move ahead, who doesn't understand how psyching out his opponent too much could lead to him making a move of desperation and everyone losing. In fact, this "nothing is off the table" policy almost led to the END OF THE WORLD several times with the USSR, because both countries were freaking out with their fingers on the button, not wanting to be annihilated without also taking the other with them in revenge. In that case, perhaps it couldn't be helped, since the countries were more evenly matched, and neither would have ever believed the other that preemptive war was in fact off the table...but if the US really took a different foreign policy tack regarding countries far our inferior in the military sense, they'd be much more likely to relax a bit.

It's like the deal with mafia stupidity in movies: The mob boss suspects an underling is going to rat on him, so it looks more and more like he might put a hit on the underling...so then, the underling freaks out and DOES to go the FBI for witness protection, and it becomes a big fucking mess where everyone dies in the end. ;) If the mafia had a very clear policy, "We won't kill you until you actually betray us and testify," all of that crap wouldn't need to escalate so quickly.

[Odin]

The United States holds the brutal distinction of actually using nuclear weapons and wiping out hundreds of thousands in a moment..

No one wants to make this painfully obvious point, but there it is. The U.S. has no moral authority to speak of on this issue, let alone dictate which countries can develop nuclear capabilities.

We have no authority to invade and occupy other countries but it is the right of the government to defend our people at the lowest cost to the American taxpayer. I'm not sure I can disagree with the government's decision to drop the atom bomb. Of course we shouldn't have embargoed Japan, but at that moment the priority should have been ending the war at the minimal cost. If that means dropping the atomic bomb, then I'd say so be it.

I agree that there is an issue with the casualty to innocent life, but we have to defend ourselves and nearly any defense will involve the loss of innocent life. In the case of a nation that attacks us, it is their government that pulled the trigger against their own people, not us. Is it the government's role to spend more American lives and money trying to be gentle enough not to take innocent life, or should we only be concerned at being efficient at defending ourselves? Can't say I know the answer for sure.

[freshjiva]

Again, this is more reason why Rand Paul has sold out the Ron Paul Revolution before he even gets elected to the Senate.

Oh well. Maybe he'll come around. At least he supports a true audit of the Federal Reserve, unlike some Republicans....

[ClayTrainor]

Of course we shouldn't have embargoed Japan, but at that moment the priority should have been ending the war at the minimal cost. If that means dropping the atomic bomb, then I'd say so be it.

How many innocent people and children would it take to change your mind?

[BlackTerrel]

Actually, it would be MUCH wiser for the US to tell other countries, in no uncertain terms, "We will not preemptively attack you." When the most powerful country in the world keeps volatile and erratic behavior (like preemptive war) on the table, it's not a stabilizing element in world politics. It puts everyone else on edge and makes them more volatile and unpredictable in turn...and a lot more eager to find a way to take out or neutralize the superpowered loosecannon, for their own safety. If we changed our foreign policy visibly and believably to take preemptive war off the table, this would ease tensions all over the world. Countries like Iran would lose a lot of the nervousness that might otherwise lead them to rash decisions, like rushing to obtain nukes for defensive leverage, or freaking out and hitting "the button" (or giving it to a terrorist) when they think they're about to be attacked.

Actually if all options are on the table perhaps they'd be less likely to sponsor terrorists or give them technology. I don't support war with Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran. Given the current situation. But that could change and I do not believe you take options off the table.

Anyway it is a very small semantic thing for people here to be freaking out about. He did not say he supports the military option. Everyone chill out, there is still a general election coming up.


Again, this is more reason why Rand Paul has sold out the Ron Paul Revolution before he even gets elected to the Senate.

Rand has not sold anyone out. How quickly you turn on people. Everyone take a deep breath and listen to the nuances of what he says. And maybe sleep on it before the accusations start flying.

[Odin]

How many innocent people and children would it take to change your mind?

Well unless I'm mistaken, the alternative was a continuation of the war at heavy cost to the US taxpayer, and an invasion of mainland Japan which would have led to the loss of many more lives, especially American lives.

[Anti Federalist]

Who fucking cares. As long as he does not support nation building. I don't want Iran to get a fucking nuke. No fucking way.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I fucking care.

There is no bigger issue to me than the subject of "preemptive" war and the hideous moral and legal consequences that go along with that.

I guess I'm in the wrong fucking place if the new meme for the "revolution" is "bomb bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

That's what happens when you dance with devil and when winning becomes more important than principles.

Very disappointed.

[tsai3904]

Again, this is more reason why Rand Paul has sold out the Ron Paul Revolution before he even gets elected to the Senate.

Oh well. Maybe he'll come around. At least he supports a true audit of the Federal Reserve, unlike some Republicans....

How did he sell out? He said he does not want to take any actions off the table. He never said he supports military action. He wants all options open as no one knows what the future holds.

[sofia]

I fucking care.

There is no bigger issue to me than the subject of "preemptive" war and the hideous moral and legal consequences that go along with that.

I guess I'm in the wrong fucking place if the new meme for the "revolution" is "bomb bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

That's what happens when you dance with devil and when winning becomes more important than principles.

Very disappointed.

well said...

and I would add that WORDS mean as much as votes do.

By not challenging the lies being told about Iran, Rand is aiding and abetting the imminent MASS MURDER of innocent Iranians....REGARDLESS of how he ends up voting.

[sofia]

How did he sell out? He said he does not want to take any actions off the table. He never said he supports military action. He wants all options open as no one knows what the future holds.

He sold out by agreeing with OReilly that Iran is a threat ...

Iran has done NOTHING!

[BlackTerrel]

I fucking care.

There is no bigger issue to me than the subject of "preemptive" war and the hideous moral and legal consequences that go along with that.

I guess I'm in the wrong fucking place if the new meme for the "revolution" is "bomb bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

That's what happens when you dance with devil and when winning becomes more important than principles.

Very disappointed.

Yes that is what Ron said: "bomb bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" :rolleyes:

Holy crap is this all it takes for people to turn on someone. We just had a great victory. Take a day to enjoy it!

[tsai3904]

well said...

and I would add that WORDS mean as much as votes do.

By not challenging the lies being told about Iran, Rand is aiding and abetting the imminent MASS MURDER of innocent Iranians....REGARDLESS of how he ends up voting.

What lies were told about Iran during the interview? From what I remember, Rand was discussing what options would be on/off the table IF Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons. No one said Iran has nuclear weapons or is in the process of obtaining nuclear weapons.

[Mini-Me]

Actually if all options are on the table perhaps they'd be less likely to sponsor terrorists or give them technology. I don't support war with Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran. Given the current situation. But that could change and I do not believe you take options off the table.

Anyway it is a very small semantic thing for people here to be freaking out about. He did not say he supports the military option. Everyone chill out, there is still a general election coming up.

I think you're totally ignoring the psychological aspect here that makes countries much more likely to lash out at those who they think are likely to attack them anyway. Leaving preemptive war on the table is insane, and it makes weaker countries behave insanely, erratically, and desperately as well. If the head of your household was a crazy ax-murderer who reserved the right to behead you at any time at the slightest provocation (and you couldn't leave the house), you'd be a lot more likely to want him dead (or prepare to lash out if he moves towards you funny) than if he were a stabilizing, comfortable presence in the household. Utter fear might keep you in line for a while if you're the meek type, but eventually you'd start preparing a coup, or at least you'd prepare to take him with you if he seemed like he was about to make his move.

[tsai3904]

He sold out by agreeing with OReilly that Iran is a threat ...

Iran has done NOTHING!

He never agreed that Iran would be a threat to OUR national security.

He said that IF and WHEN Iran has a nuclear weapon, it would destabilize the region. I would think everyone in the world would agree with this. Any country having nuclear weapons destabilizes the world.

[sofia]

What lies were told about Iran during the interview? From what I remember, Rand was discussing what options would be on/off the table IF Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons. No one said Iran has nuclear weapons or is in the process of obtaining nuclear weapons.

Rand failed to challenge the "if"...which is a total bullshit "if"...

The same crap about WMD's was sold to us about Iraq.

By not calling out Oreilly's bullshit and by playing his game....he is selling out the millions of innocent Iranians who will die within the next year or two...

Their blood will be on the hands of all americans who refused to speak out against the war propaganda....

shame on Rand

[Anti Federalist]

Well unless I'm mistaken, the alternative was a continuation of the war at heavy cost to the US taxpayer, and an invasion of mainland Japan which would have led to the loss of many more lives, especially American lives.

It's become clear that the primary reason was to end the war and scare off the Soviets before they could enter the Pacific theater and expand their territory and war gains.

[Odin]

He sold out by agreeing with OReilly that Iran is a threat ...

Iran has done NOTHING!

All theocracies, especially Islamic ones, are a threat.

That doesn't mean we invade and occupy them, but it does mean that we remain wary of them. People who are brutal and oppressive toward their own people would do the same to other people.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes that is what Ron said: "bomb bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" :rolleyes:

Holy crap is this all it takes for people to turn on someone. We just had a great victory. Take a day to enjoy it!

Ron is not Rand.

Yes I turn quick.

Been double crossed too many times.

Enjoy your party.

[ClayTrainor]

Well unless I'm mistaken, the alternative was a continuation of the war at heavy cost to the US taxpayer, and an invasion of mainland Japan which would have led to the loss of many more lives, especially American lives.

How many innocent Japanese children are you willing to kill to save one American soldier?

It was clear that Japan was defeated before that bomb was dropped. They negotiated a peace treaty with the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_Neutrality_Pact). Shortly after, the Soviets betrayed them alongside the Americans. Stalin and his communist regime was America's Ally. It's worth Noting that the death count of Stalin's Soviet Union makes Hitler look like a boy scout.

How can anyone justify the murder of such a large group of innocent people, and doing so with the help of the single biggest mass murderer of all time? All to defeat a nation that was clearly on the verge of defeat...

[Odin]

It's become clear that the primary reason was to end the war and scare off the Soviets before they could enter the Pacific theater and expand their territory and war gains.

Well what's wrong with that? Believe me, the Japanese suffered less due to the atomic bomb that they would have under an American, or especially Soviet, invasion.

[sofia]

It's become clear that the primary reason was to end the war and scare off the Soviets before they could enter the Pacific theater and expand their territory and war gains.

hardly...

Russia declared war on Japan AFTER the two A bombs were dropped...

For this noble effort, the US gave Stalin Manchuria and North Korea...

A Bomb was dropped in order to spook the planet into fear of nuclear war....and acceptance of "global cooperation" as a means to avoid nuke war

[PeacePlan]

I think Rand will do well in the area I want most. That would be getting rid of the Fed and following the constitution. He said he would not take anything off the table but my guess is he would follow the Constitution and ask for a declaration of war before he would bomb anyone. At least I hope to God he would?

[sofia]

All theocracies, especially Islamic ones, are a threat.

That doesn't mean we invade and occupy them, but it does mean that we remain wary of them. People who are brutal and oppressive toward their own people would do the same to other people.

just stop....

you know NOTHING about Iran, it's people, its culture, its history, its intentions, its language...

do u speak and read Persian???

.....so keep your expertise on Iran to yourself

[Anti Federalist]

Well what's wrong with that? Believe me, the Japanese suffered less due to the atomic bomb that they would have under an American, or especially Soviet, invasion.

Oh nothing at all, by all means, let's incinerate a quarter million people for political expediency.

<<<looks behind me to see if I've walked through the looking glass.

[Odin]

How many innocent Japanese children are you willing to kill to save one American soldier?

It was clear that Japan was defeated before that bomb was dropped. They negotiated a peace treaty with the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_Neutrality_Pact). Shortly after, the Soviets betrayed them alongside the Americans. Stalin and his communist regime was America's Ally. It's worth Noting that the death count of Stalin's Soviet Union makes Hitler look like a bot scout.

How can anyone justify the murder of such a large group of innocent people, and doing so with the help of the single biggest mass murder of all time. All to defeat a nation that was clearly on the verge of defeat, already.

I would probably sacrifice a soldier to save a child any day, but it's a very tricky question. Do we invade and occupy, and be gentle to avoid taking innocent life, suffer more American casualties, and stay there for years? Or do we get it over with? As I said, maybe you are right. Obviously we avoid the problem if we stay out of it altogether, but we know that is not always an option. I personally am not sure how this issue reconciles with my principles.

[Depressed Liberator]

Foreign policy is the most important issue to me for any candidate. If a progressive is truly anti war and for bringing the troops home, I am willing to support him over the typical neocon.

I don't know what to think about Rand. Does he really believe this bullshit, or is he just doing it to get elected? I'm not liking it either way, but I sure do hope that he is only doing it to get elected at this point.

[tremendoustie]

We have no authority to invade and occupy other countries but it is the right of the government to defend our people at the lowest cost to the American taxpayer. I'm not sure I can disagree with the government's decision to drop the atom bomb. Of course we shouldn't have embargoed Japan, but at that moment the priority should have been ending the war at the minimal cost. If that means dropping the atomic bomb, then I'd say so be it.

I agree that there is an issue with the casualty to innocent life, but we have to defend ourselves and nearly any defense will involve the loss of innocent life. In the case of a nation that attacks us, it is their government that pulled the trigger against their own people, not us. Is it the government's role to spend more American lives and money trying to be gentle enough not to take innocent life, or should we only be concerned at being efficient at defending ourselves? Can't say I know the answer for sure.

Killing innocent people is wrong, period. The Nagasaki and Heroshima holocausts were not even close to justified.

There's a real easy way to make sure you only kill aggressors. Stay at home, and defend it, instead of invading other people's countries.

[eproxy100]

Ron is not Rand.

Yes I turn quick.

Been double crossed too many times.

Enjoy your party.

Anti-Fed, I was worried about it too, but I noticed how Rand hardly ever says anything specific about actually attacking Iran or such.

Rand has to play their political game to win. If he even suggests that the US will stop funding israel the neocons will quickly turn on him. I understand your frustration, but think of it this way: he's probably playing the game the neocons play except in the opposite direction. Neocons always say they're anti-big government and stuff, but when they win they vote for big government. So now Rand is probably saying all this stuff about Iran only so that he gets voted in, and once he's in he'll stop the talk and vote no to war.

[Odin]

just stop....

you know NOTHING about Iran, it's people, its culture, its history, its intentions, its language...

do u speak and read Persian???

.....so keep your expertise on Iran to yourself

Well I've been to the Middle East, I've read the Koran and know a little bit about their government (it is ruled by Islam). Islamic theocrats are dangerous, look what they do to their own people. Not saying we should invade them, or solve their problems, but they are not to be trusted as having peaceful intentions.

[tremendoustie]

Anti-Fed, I was worried about it too, but I noticed how Rand hardly ever says anything specific about actually attacking Iran or such.

Rand has to play their political game to win. If he even suggests that the US will stop funding israel the neocons will quickly turn on him. I understand your frustration, but think of it this way: he's probably playing the game the neocons play except in the opposite direction. Neocons always say they're anti-big government and stuff, but when they win they vote for big government. So now Rand is probably saying all this stuff about Iran only so that he gets voted in, and once he's in he'll stop the talk and vote no to war.

I'll believe it when I see it. He'll get my support then.

[sofia]

Anti-Fed, I was worried about it too, but I noticed how Rand hardly ever says anything specific about actually attacking Iran or such.

Rand has to play their political game to win. If he even suggests that the US will stop funding israel the neocons will quickly turn on him. I understand your frustration, but think of it this way: he's probably playing the game the neocons play except in the opposite direction. Neocons always say they're anti-big government and stuff, but when they win they vote for big government. So now Rand is probably saying all this stuff about Iran only so that he gets voted in, and once he's in he'll stop the talk and vote no to war.

when does the "game playing" end?....Innocent human lives are at stake here....somebody has got to expose these lies about WMD's

[Anti Federalist]

Anti-Fed, I was worried about it too, but I noticed how Rand hardly ever says anything specific about actually attacking Iran or such.

Rand has to play their political game to win. If he even suggests that the US will stop funding israel the neocons will quickly turn on him. I understand your frustration, but think of it this way: he's probably playing the game the neocons play except in the opposite direction. Neocons always say they're anti-big government and stuff, but when they win they vote for big government. So now Rand is probably saying all this stuff about Iran only so that he gets voted in, and once he's in he'll stop the talk and vote no to war.

I'm hoping that's the case, I really am.

But then again, wish in one hand shit in the other...

Time will tell I suppose.

[AGRP]

Ugh, I turned off the video within the first two minutes of the interview. Ron Paul remains the only politician I like. His son doesn't appeal to me at all.

People who don't like his stance on iran really need to slow down and listen to what he is saying. He never said he would attack iran if they had one. He said it would remain on the table.

I think he's brilliant simply because of how he parces his words so beautifully. He realizes he has to play ball with the neo-cons if he wants to become the president. He's doing a wonderful job with is words.

[Odin]

Killing innocent people is wrong, period. The Nagasaki and Heroshima holocausts were not even close to justified.

There's a real easy way to make sure you only kill aggressors. Stay at home, and defend it, instead of invading other people's countries.

But not all other countries are non-interventionist. World War II was caused by the problems of interventionism, but what do we do when we are attacked? We have to quickly kill the people who attacked us, then come back. When the problems escalate into something like World War II, and Japan brings us into the conflict by attacking us (yes yes I know we embargoed Japan first which prompted their attack), our principle of "stay at home and defend it only" no longer works.

What if invading Japan created a situation like what happened in Vietnam. Would you then support in retrospect dropping the bomb and ending it quickly instead?

[Mini-Me]

I'm hoping that's the case, I really am.

But then again, wish in one hand shit in the other...

Time will tell I suppose.

This is my view as well: I don't like his rhetoric, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he argues or casts a vote in favor of war in the Senate. At the same time, I'm not going mince my OWN words about foreign policy. ;)

[ronpaulraps]

Ron Paul Is One of A Kind. You Gotta Love The Good Doctor

[eproxy100]

to: tremendoustie, sofia, anti-fed

I understand where you guys are coming from. Believe me, I think that israel is a bigger threat than any other nation. The way I see it in terms of Rand Paul though is that if we do not get him in we're guaranteed to get another warmongering big government douche instead. We know Rand Paul's background, and at the moment he's our best shot. Give him a chance so at least we can see if he's really another neocon or not.

[ClayTrainor]

Ron Paul Is One of A Kind. You Gotta Love The Good Doctor

Hell Yea...

This is what happens when Bill O'Reilly and Ron Paul discuss foreign policy. No compromise...

YouTube - Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly Duke It Out (09/10/07) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY)

[Mini-Me]

But not all other countries are non-interventionist. World War II was caused by the problems of interventionism, but what do we do when we are attacked? We have to quickly kill the people who attacked us, then come back. When the problems escalate into something like World War II, and Japan brings us into the conflict by attacking us (yes yes I know we embargoed Japan first which prompted their attack), our principle of "stay at home and defend it only" no longer works.

What if invading Japan created a situation like what happened in Vietnam. Would you then support in retrospect dropping the bomb and ending it quickly instead?

I don't think anybody here is saying, "We should have invaded the mainland instead of dropping the bomb." Instead, the argument is, "We should have negotiated peace and possibly reparations with Japan instead of dropping the bomb." There's a lot of propaganda about how Japan would have never surrendered, that they were too proud and honor-obsessed, etc., and that only the deaths of thousands or millions of US soldiers and Japanese civilians in a land invasion would end the war. The pilot who dropped the bomb was led to believe that, and so have almost all Americans since then. It's only fitting that this story was a complete fabrication made to retroactively justify dropping the bomb and committing one of the worst crimes the world has ever seen. The lie works so well because it's so plausible given our understanding of Japanese culture, but the truth is that Japan HAD been willing to surrender. This article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers205.html) is from Lew Rockwell's site, so you might claim bias or libertarian propaganda. However, it cites the historical record, such as Truman's own writings prior to the bomb having been dropped, which prove that Japan had already offered to surrender. Truman may have been a bit loopy, but multiple instances recognizing the Japanese desire for surrender are a bit hard to explain away.

[Anti Federalist]

This is my view as well: I don't like his rhetoric, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he argues or casts a vote in favor of war in the Senate. At the same time, I'm not going mince my OWN words about foreign policy. ;)

Exactly.

We'll see if this plays out to be a "reverse Scott Brown" situation.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't think anybody here is saying, "We should have invaded the mainland instead of dropping the bomb." Instead, the argument is, "We should have negotiated peace and possibly reparations with Japan instead of dropping the bomb." There's a lot of propaganda about how Japan would have never surrendered. The pilot who dropped the bomb was led to believe that, and so have Americans since then. However, Japan HAD been willing to surrender. This article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers205.html) is from Lew Rockwell's site, so you might claim bias or libertarian propaganda. However, it cites the historical record, such as Truman's own writings prior to the bomb having been dropped, which prove that Japan had already offered to surrender.

That's a good article, highly recommended.

That Japan had already surrendered is on the record, the only sticking point was what the status of their emperor was going to be.

[Anti Federalist]

Hell Yea...

This is what happens when Bill O'Reilly and Ron Paul discuss foreign policy. No compromise...

YouTube - Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly Duke It Out (09/10/07) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY)

That's what I'm talking about.

:D

[Odin]

I don't think anybody here is saying, "We should have invaded the mainland instead of dropping the bomb." Instead, the argument is, "We should have negotiated peace and possibly reparations with Japan instead of dropping the bomb." There's a lot of propaganda about how Japan would have never surrendered, that they were too proud and honor-obsessed, etc., and that only the deaths of thousands or millions of US soldiers and Japanese civilians in a land invasion would end the war. The pilot who dropped the bomb was led to believe that, and so have Americans since then. However, all of that is a complete fabrication made to retroactively justify dropping the bomb and committing one of the worst crimes the world has ever seen. Japan HAD been willing to surrender. This article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers205.html) is from Lew Rockwell's site, so you might claim bias or libertarian propaganda. However, it cites the historical record, such as Truman's own writings prior to the bomb having been dropped, which prove that Japan had already offered to surrender. Truman may have been a bit loopy, but multiple instances recognizing the Japanese desire for surrender are a bit hard to explain away.

Perhaps you are right, I'll read the article and look into it. No doubt if an option existed that didn't involve the deaths of many innocent people it should have been taken. But I don't think it detracts from the hypothetical situation. There are certain possible circumstances in which "dropping the bomb" would be the right decision.

[ronpaulraps]

Hell Yea...

This is what happens when Bill O'Reilly and Ron Paul discuss foreign policy. No compromise...

YouTube - Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly Duke It Out (09/10/07) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY)

Exactly I Had To Watch That Debate For Ole Time Sake. When You Have Knowledge. You Can Stand Up To Anyone

[Mini-Me]

That's a good article, highly recommended.

That Japan had already surrendered is on the record, the only sticking point was what the status of their emperor was going to be.

Indeed...
I actually haven't seen the primary source (or a copy) regarding that point though (that the Japanese had one condition, and that is that we not execute Hirohito). Do you know what document(s) to look in for proof?

[tremendoustie]

But not all other countries are non-interventionist. World War II was caused by the problems of interventionism, but what do we do when we are attacked? We have to quickly kill the people who attacked us, then come back. When the problems escalate into something like World War II, and Japan brings us into the conflict by attacking us (yes yes I know we embargoed Japan first which prompted their attack), our principle of "stay at home and defend it only" no longer works.

What if invading Japan created a situation like what happened in Vietnam. Would you then support in retrospect dropping the bomb and ending it quickly instead?

There's no need to invade Japan or drop nukes. They were crippled at that point anyway.

Once you've driven them off your land, you're done.

I'm not a fan of standing armies. I think we need many strong independent citizen militias. Attacking us, in that context, would be suicide. If some individual overseas is plotting attacks, they can be taken out.

Hire a team to go assassinate the emperor, if you want. Don't blow up hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

[Mini-Me]

Perhaps you are right, I'll read the article and look into it. No doubt if an option existed that didn't involve the deaths of many innocent people it should have been taken. But I don't think it detracts from the hypothetical situation. There are certain possible circumstances in which "dropping the bomb" would be the right decision.

Although the hypothetical discussion is a different one, I do think you could make a stronger case here. I might still disagree, and at the very least I could never agree with dropping the bomb on civilian targets, but I could probably imagine extreme hypothetical scenarios where dropping it on military/government targets could potentially be the only viable option (despite the spillover to surrounding areas). I think it would have to be a pretty dire situation for me to consider that anymore though. (I say "anymore" because I used to believe the US was justified in dropping BOTH bombs...)

Still, considering the way dropping the bomb changed the face of the world forever and put us in peril of complete self-annihilation, that's a pretty awful price to pay regardless...

[Jordan]

http://imgur.com/0Rdgs.png

[Mini-Me]

http://imgur.com/0Rdgs.png

In all fairness, there probably aren't too many groups you can name who did change a goddamn thing, at least for the better. ;) The waffling, compromising Republican Party sure hasn't done so on economic issues, and the waffling, compromising Democratic Party hasn't done so on wars and the police state. When you field people willing to compromise on everything, you end up getting nothing...or worse. (Of course, I'm not saying that Rand IS willing to compromise on everything; he's obviously not. Preemptive war is a dealbreaker issue for a lot of us though, so it should make sense why we're so leery of his rhetoric here.)

[Anti Federalist]

Indeed...
I actually haven't seen the primary source (or a copy) regarding that point though (that the Japanese had one condition, and that is that we not execute Hirohito). Do you know what document(s) to look in for proof?

According to wiki they were considering it and haggling over the emperor's status.


On June 22, the Emperor met his ministers, saying "I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts be made to implement them." The attempt to negotiate a peace via the Soviet Union came to nothing. There was always the threat that extremists would carry out a coup or foment other violence. On July 26, 1945, the Allies issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender. The Japanese government council, the Big Six, considered that option and recommended to the Emperor that it be accepted only if one to four conditions were agreed, including a guarantee of the Emperor's continued position in Japanese society. The Emperor decided not to surrender.

[Anti Federalist]

http://imgur.com/0Rdgs.png

:confused:

They founded a nation that changed the course of human history.

[Imperial]

Some of you people are unrealistic.

You know they have a term for people who believe in an utopian society.

It's called Liberalism.

That isn't really an accurate definition. Princeton wordnet defines it as, "tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition." As far as political philosophy and utopia goes, that would probably apply most to neo-conservatives and communists.

Anyway, Rand looked exhausted in that interview. Wasn't his best interview by far, and I don't like keeping nuclear weapons on the table... Still, he never advocated for military intervention outright and never said sanctions (he said don't subsidize companies and cut off state pensions).

[The Patriot]

Iran has threatened no one and Rand says he's open to military action????


Here is Iranian terrorist surrogate, Hezbollah, chanting, "death to America"
YouTube - A Hizbullah Leader: "Death to America" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tXfIYxPGQs)
Here is the Ayotollah talking about the chant, "death to America".
YouTube - Iranian Former Leader Explains Why Say "Death to America" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OIUieD2KN4&feature=related)
Iranians chant, "death to America", at Ahmedenijad rally
YouTube - "Death to America" chants in Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4&feature=related)
Iranian Kids: "Death to Israel, Death to America"
YouTube - Iranian Kids: "Death to Israel, Death to America" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI-DiaBi7VE&feature=related)

Why do you insist on being woefully ignorant on the issues?

You want these genocidal maniacs to have a weapon? You do realize that Israel struck Iraqi nuclear sites in the 80s and Ron Paul supported it. We should do the same if push comes to shove with Iran.

[chadhb]

You have been Neo-Conned, saw that coming 100 miles away.

[The Patriot]

I think that israel is a bigger threat than any other nation.

That is because you are an idiot, thankfully you aren't anywhere near Rand Paul's campaign, and hopefully you won't have anything to do with a potential Ron Paul run in 2012, other than in posting moronic babble on this website.

[chadhb]

People just need to realize Rand wont be Ron Paul 2.0. At best your going to get someone who while fight for economic liberty and shrinking the government.......but from the looks of it Rand will be moderate on foreign military intervention and hawkish on social issues.

Isn't that the definition of Neo-Con, I knew something was up with the Palin support. Mind you I never heard Rand speak or read anything about him. I don't support someone because who he is related too. Bush and Kennedys to name 2.

[Captain America]

good job Rand! on every interview tonight. on maddow you made it clear that she was being dishonest.

[Captain America]

Isn't that the definition of Neo-Con, I knew something was up with the Palin support. Mind you I never heard Rand speak or read anything about him. I don't support someone because who he is related too. Bush and Kennedys to name 2.


if you're not a troll then you need to listen to him speak. he is for liberty. he is not for pacifism but won't interfere with other countries unless it is a threat to our way of life. he is for beautiful free market capitalism. for property rights to the extreme and not in favor of collectivism.

and its not about rand its about liberty. we will have many more. actual progression is coming. free people.

[Flirple]

ugh... depressing shit.

Ron Paul is truly one of a kind.

There has only been one. There will always be only one. Not Jefferson or Goldwater before him nor Schiff, Rand, etc. currently.

Nobody was, is, or probably will ever be in Ron's league when it comes to having complete mastery over economics, history, foreign policy, sincerity, and consistent adherence to the non-aggression principle. In AND out of office.

I hear what everyone is saying about "he needs to say that now to get elected..." And we may end up being pleasantly surprised. But I will just remind everyone that that is what all the "anti-war" liberals said about Obama in 2007. And we rightfully mocked them for it.

[BlackTerrel]

Isn't that the definition of Neo-Con, I knew something was up with the Palin support. Mind you I never heard Rand speak or read anything about him. I don't support someone because who he is related too. Bush and Kennedys to name 2.

In that case you need to listen to Rand speak and read more about him instead of judging him in a five minute interview. He did fine in that interview BTW. People here are way way way overreacting.

[RM918]

In that case you need to listen to Rand speak and read more about him instead of judging him in a five minute interview. He did fine in that interview BTW. People here are way way way overreacting.

I really hope so, Terrel. After witnessing torpedo-interview after torpedo-interview with our people falling right into the trap and seeing them work, my cynicism reaches greater and greater quantities. I'll just have to wait and see.

[BuddyRey]

I fucking care.

There is no bigger issue to me than the subject of "preemptive" war and the hideous moral and legal consequences that go along with that.

I guess I'm in the wrong fucking place if the new meme for the "revolution" is "bomb bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

That's what happens when you dance with devil and when winning becomes more important than principles.

Very disappointed.

My sentiments exactly. I'm praying that this is Rand playing up to the neocons for votes and not his actual foreign policy.

[devil21]

Eh, I wasn't thrilled with the interview, particularly Rand's reply on Iran. However, I did not hear him say he supports military action. He never said he supported military action. He said he'd keep all options on the table. We can always have options, the issue is whether they are used and why. I'd support military action against Iran in some cases, like if they launch missiles at a US Navy boat or any other direct act of provocation. (Yes, Im aware of the false flag potential there...)

Overall not a great interview but Rand was definitely playing semantic games with Bill's questions. I'm going to wait for a more definitive statement before I pass judgment.

[Corto_Maltese]

Ron Paul stood his ground against Bill. Rand didnt :/

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

Rand Paul didn't say he's in favor of pre-emptive war against Iran. He just said we should "keep all options on the table." He's never going to use the option of pre-emptive war, but by making a carte-blanche statement of "keep all options open," he can satisfy the Right. It was like when Ron Paul offered a Declaration of War against Iraq in Congress. Ron Paul would never actually vote for it, but he wanted to offer it up so that if we did go to war with Iraq, we would do it right.

Furthermore, if you listen to all the ways Rand Paul says we can prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, they are all well within the libertarian sphere of acceptable action: withdrawing government subsidies from companies that do business with Iran, withdrawing government privileges from companies that do business with Iran, etc. Those subsidies and privileges need to be withdrawn anyway, and the Iranian situation is a good excuse for libertarians to get it done.

[pacelli]

I don't know whether Rand was extremely tired or whatever, but he looks run down and depressed that he won. This stoic face that he has starting the interviews in front of the brick wall kind of invites the interviewer to adopt a suspicious or even hostile stance. Somebody tell Rand to please get some sleep and if he drinks coffee or tea, it might be a good idea to work on his energy levels. He didn't look like someone who just won. He looked like he just lost.

As far as "no options off the table" for Iran, that of course means that pre-emptive war is included in the options that are ON the table. I reject it on it's face. I'm not going to re-interpret Rand's words. Sure, he isn't an experienced politician like his father, but come on! How difficult is it to say that Iran isn't a threat to the United States, and if they ever become a threat, we should declare war, fight it, and get it over with. The role of the US is not to be the policemen of the world, and if another country wants to pursue a nuclear weapon, then that's their choice in life.

And he proposed the possibility of a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. That sounds like more government to me, not less.

I hope Rand realizes that by 'playing the game' with these questions and appealing to the teaocons, he is no different than your average politician that will say anything just to get elected.

I hope Rand's voting record tells the real tale and is fully in line with the liberty movement. Because the voting record is what really matters here, not interviews.

[YumYum]

Rand has got bigger problems than where he stands on Iran. His claim that he wouldn't vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is going to hurt him. The media will run this into the ground. Ever heard of the "Dean Scream"?

[sofia]

Here is Iranian terrorist surrogate, Hezbollah, chanting, "death to America"
YouTube - A Hizbullah Leader: "Death to America" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tXfIYxPGQs)
Here is the Ayotollah talking about the chant, "death to America".
YouTube - Iranian Former Leader Explains Why Say "Death to America" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OIUieD2KN4&feature=related)
Iranians chant, "death to America", at Ahmedenijad rally
YouTube - "Death to America" chants in Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92myDzAFgU4&feature=related)
Iranian Kids: "Death to Israel, Death to America"
YouTube - Iranian Kids: "Death to Israel, Death to America" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI-DiaBi7VE&feature=related)

Why do you insist on being woefully ignorant on the issues?

You want these genocidal maniacs to have a weapon? You do realize that Israel struck Iraqi nuclear sites in the 80s and Ron Paul supported it. We should do the same if push comes to shove with Iran.


if a foreign power (say China) did to the US what we do to Iran.....what would u say?..."Up with China"???....learn to be objective

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Rand has got bigger problems than where he stands on Iran. His claim that he wouldn't vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is going to hurt him. The media will run this into the ground. Ever heard of the "Dean Scream"?

I doubt he had a ton of black KY votes anyway, he will be ok.

[MelissaCato]

He's working it, folks. Let him win, dont shoot ourselves in the foot.

the game is chess, not checkers.

I agree. The goal is checkmate. :D:D

[charrob]

glad i didn't support him.

-just another neocon. whoopee...

[idirtify]

While most here are disappointed by Rand’s military comments, his real double-talk was at 3:16 after Bill asked whether he would outlaw ALL abortion in the US – even in the case of rape and incest and catastrophic health to the mom:

“I think (what) the difficulty with abortion and with (you know) determining when life begins is that it is a difficult determination, but once you determine that life begins, then I think you have individual rights, and the individual right of the child comes into play, so then the circumstances of the pregnancy are really separate from that individual life.”

While he may sound to some like he knows what he is talking about, it’s nothing but circular double-talk. He provides nothing to show that individual rights begin at any time before birth.

Here’s an actual breakdown of his comment:

“The difficulty with determining when life begins is a difficult determination. But once you determine that life begins, you have individual rights. And those rights override the rights of the mother.”

Subtracting the circular double-talk would leave the most logical translation - that would go something like this:

“Since it is difficult to determine when life begins, abortion must be illegal.”

Now THAT is some scary notion of law: “If there is a question, prohibit it.” Under that principle, wave goodbye to any hope of fiscally-conservative government – to say the least.

[Fredom101]

I fucking care.

There is no bigger issue to me than the subject of "preemptive" war and the hideous moral and legal consequences that go along with that.

I guess I'm in the wrong fucking place if the new meme for the "revolution" is "bomb bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

That's what happens when you dance with devil and when winning becomes more important than principles.

Very disappointed.

Fantastic post.
I'm glad this thread is getting some discussion.
Are we, as Ron Paul supporters/libertarians going to stand for principles, or do we just want to "win at all costs"?

I get sad when I read posts like "Well he's not perfect but he had to say that to get into office."

This is just the compromise we see from all other politicians, and the down the slippery slope we go into more statism. Compromise got us what we have now- a useless constitution and a march towards a socialist/fascist state.

[idirtify]

Everyone take a deep breath and listen to the nuances of what he says.

Check out the “nuances” from 3:16 to 3:38. Sounds more like “NuSpeak” to me.

[Justinjj1]

Ive been saying for months that Rand Paul is a snake in the grass. I'm glad I never gave any of my money to this clown.

[idirtify]

I think Rand will do well in the area I want most. That would be getting rid of the Fed and following the constitution.

Except the times he’s talked about amending the constitution.

[idirtify]

People who don't like his stance on iran really need to slow down and listen to what he is saying.

I think he's brilliant simply because of how he parces his words so beautifully.

He's doing a wonderful job with is words.

Except from minute 3:16 to 3:38.

[The Patriot]

if a foreign power (say China) did to the US what we do to Iran.....what would u say?..."Up with China"???....learn to be objective

I know, America's existence as the strongest of the heretical nations of the west bothers them, they are quite clear about that, Al Qaeda is as well if you read their manifesto after 911 as well. But the fact is, The Islamic Republic of Iran and their surrogates have repeatedly attacked America(Beirut Bombing and invasion of american territory at our embassy in Tehran come to mind), and called for the elimination of America and Israel and Iran terrorist surrogate Hezbollah has called for bringing all the Jews to Israel to slaughter them.

I think you ought to learn to be objective, and look at the reality of the situation, which is hat a psychotic regime with terrorist ties cannot have a nuclear weapon, and if they attain it, we must take out their nuclear sites.

[rich34]

Ugh, I turned off the video within the first two minutes of the interview. Ron Paul remains the only politician I like. His son doesn't appeal to me at all.

Uhh, and how many Ron Paul's are in the house? Rand has got to get into the senate first. Let the man dance a little in order to get elected. The dishonest ones do it all the time and that's all we got in Washington. Go back and look at Ron's commercials from 97. He wasn't always as "principled" as you think. Ron can speak the way he wants to now beause he's a 10 term congressman. Lets get him elected first...

[rich34]

good grief!

wtf???

Iran has threatened no one and Rand says he's open to military action????...why doesnt he challenge OReilly's lies about WMD????

when will Rand's ass-kissing of the neo-con right end???? He just won by 25 points!!!

very disappointing...

How many liberty candidates do we have in congress? And with this mindset along with some others we'll never get any more in there. Hell, Ron wasn't always as "principled" when he was trying to get relected back into the house back in 97... You gotta play the game just like the rest do. When he gets in office then we can hold his feet to the fire. Geez...

[Justinjj1]

I know, America's existence as the strongest of the heretical nations of the west bothers them, they are quite clear about that, Al Qaeda is as well if you read their manifesto after 911 as well. But the fact is, The Islamic Republic of Iran and their surrogates have repeatedly attacked America(Beirut Bombing and invasion of american territory at our embassy in Tehran come to mind), and called for the elimination of America and Israel and Iran terrorist surrogate Hezbollah has called for bringing all the Jews to Israel to slaughter them.

I think you ought to learn to be objective, and look at the reality of the situation, which is hat a psychotic regime with terrorist ties cannot have a nuclear weapon, and if they attain it, we must take out their nuclear sites.

WTF is this. Iran is a peaceful nation full of honest, hardworking, respectable people. They are a nation that we have been meddling with for fucking decades through covert CIA action, and they have every right to be extremely pissed at the U.S. and especially Israel, which has been slaughtering their brothers and neighbors for decades. The biggest terrorist nation in the world is the U.S. and we have thousands of nuclear weapons. The idea that Iran would pose a threat to anybody if they had 1 fucking nuke is preposterous. It seriously seems like neocon chickenhawks have invaded this forum with the help of Rand Paul and his idiotic warmongering rhetoric.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Hell Yea...

This is what happens when Bill O'Reilly and Ron Paul discuss foreign policy. No compromise...

YouTube - Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly Duke It Out (09/10/07) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7JPvbVsDdY)

+1

[chadhb]

In that case you need to listen to Rand speak and read more about him instead of judging him in a five minute interview. He did fine in that interview BTW. People here are way way way overreacting.

Well i'm done bashing Rand, because it is more important to get him elected, just on the face of it. Even if Rand back pedals, the idea is already out there that Constitutionist's IE Ron Paul 2012 are electable. Just as I don't back Schiff, but I would like to see him get elected.

But i'm very happy for you guy's that put forth the effort for this win, I really gave up after 2008. Of course we still have an election to get through. Maybe there is hope.

[freshjiva]

Uhh, and how many Ron Paul's are in the house? Rand has got to get into the senate first. Let the man dance a little in order to get elected. The dishonest ones do it all the time and that's all we got in Washington. Go back and look at Ron's commercials from 97. He wasn't always as "principled" as you think. Ron can speak the way he wants to now beause he's a 10 term congressman. Lets get him elected first...

I couldn't disagree more. There are videos and written transcripts of Ron Paul from the early 1980s and his 1988 Presidential campaign. They sound like a broken record. The war against the Fed, advocating a foreign policy of peace and commerce, free markets, ending the drug wars, ending inflationism, balancing budgets, and sound money -- these by NO means are recently devised issues.

THAT is how consistent and principled Ron is. And that is precisely why he has started a movement.

[BlackTerrel]

Ive been saying for months that Rand Paul is a snake in the grass. I'm glad I never gave any of my money to this clown.

Seriously? This whole bash Rand thing is tiring :cool:


WTF is this. Iran is a peaceful nation full of honest, hardworking, respectable people. They are a nation that we have been meddling with for fucking decades through covert CIA action, and they have every right to be extremely pissed at the U.S. and especially Israel, which has been slaughtering their brothers and neighbors for decades. The biggest terrorist nation in the world is the U.S. and we have thousands of nuclear weapons. The idea that Iran would pose a threat to anybody if they had 1 fucking nuke is preposterous. It seriously seems like neocon chickenhawks have invaded this forum with the help of Rand Paul and his idiotic warmongering rhetoric.

Iran is awesome. We suck. Got it crystal clear.

[devil21]

Seriously? This whole bash Rand thing is tiring :cool:



Iran is awesome. We suck. Got it crystal clear.

Intellectual discourse is appreciated much more than empty one-liners. Are you going to claim they hate us for our freedom next?

Feel free to list how many times the Iranians have overthrown our democratically elected government and installed a religious puppet dictatorship. Feel free to list how many times Iranians have set up shop in our country and stolen our natural resources under threat of military action. Feel free to list how many times Iran has invaded our next door neighbors, Mexico and Canada. Feel free to list how many times Iran has moved to sanction the US for having nuclear weapons. Feel free to list how many times the Iranian government has given billions in weapons and aid to kill Americans in our own native country. You get the picture, right?

Forgive us for not getting whipped into a frenzy over a few videos of some tough words from some pissed off Iranians. The list of transgressions isn't exactly comparable.

(And that's assuming you believe the translations of Farsi in the first place. We already know that the media plays games with Farsi translations.)