Our Liberty candidates who haven't served are the militaristic ones.

[Arklatex]

Thoughts?

This has been brought up before, but Ron and Adam who have served in the forces, frequently talk about peace, meanwhile Rand and Peter who grew up rich boys are the ones who talk about nukes and are the most war hawkish. It's true.

That's the difference between Rand and his daddy. One talks about peace.

If Ron runs for president I have a $1000 waiting on him, if his son does I have $25 for him.

[Young Paleocon]

Thoughts?

This has been brought up before, but Ron and Adam who have served in the forces, frequently talk about peace, meanwhile Rand and Peter who grew up rich boys are the ones who talk about nukes and are the most war hawkish. It's true.

That's the difference between Rand and his daddy. One talks about peace.

If Ron runs for president I have a $1000 waiting on him, if his son does I have $25 for him.

Maybe you should hold off on the declarations for Rand and wait to see how he actually votes. Remember he's on campaign now. Ron has had chances time and again to prove his principles. Wait for the votes then we'll see what Rand believes.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Ron is clearly rooted in philosophy and able to effectively sell the message of peace. You might be on to something with the military observation. Nukes are clearly a fear/courage divide. For all we know Rand thought his father was out in left field for a lot of years and has recently come to terms with what his father has stood for all of these years with the sudden popularity in 07/08. Rand is not an idiot but he is obviously not the intellectual and philosopher Ron is. At least not yet.

Maybe he just hasn't really sat down and thought some of these issues through to a conclusion and really reflected on them to flush out his position. We want to love Rand because he is Ron's son but the message and consistency is a big ass deal.

Criticism over Gitmo, Iran, and now the CRA is tough love.

[TonySutton]

Even within the military, I saw the ones who deployed and walked around on foreign soil understood peace better than those who sat in air conditioned offices on US soil.

[MRoCkEd]

The districts change their tune, not military records.

[aclove]

The OP's assertion does not account for BJ Lawson, who didn't serve and whose rhetoric is more in line with Ron's and Adam's.

Also, MRocked has a point, because Lawson's district is gerrymandered to be very progressive-Democrat.

[BlackTerrel]

This has been brought up before, but Ron and Adam who have served in the forces, frequently talk about peace, meanwhile Rand and Peter who grew up rich boys are the ones who talk about nukes and are the most war hawkish. It's true.

Rand and Peter are not war hawkish.

I also don't think your theory would hold up. Anecdotally my experience is actually the opposite, though I've never seen a survey on the wars between vets and non-vets. I guess it would be interesting to see.

[dean.engelhardt]

Maybe you should hold off on the declarations for Rand and wait to see how he actually votes. Remember he's on campaign now. Ron has had chances time and again to prove his principles. Wait for the votes then we'll see what Rand believes.

Agreed. If you have to lay down with dogs you are going to get fleas. Rand says that defense spending is a top priority. He didn't say anything about war spending.

[jmdrake]

I can't believe nobody mentioned RJ Harris. He's currently deployed! And he's rock solid on the war issue.

Anyway, Ron's an incumbent. He's voting record speaks for itself. He couldn't pretend to be a hawk at this point if he wanted to. Adam was a major antiwar activist prior to running. Again no sense in claiming to be anything else. Rand's more of a blank slate. Yeah there are the speeches he did for his dad, but nothing as concrete at the others. And Rand has a chance to win. Let's see how he votes in office.

[hugolp]

Thoughts?

This has been brought up before, but Ron and Adam who have served in the forces, frequently talk about pre are the speeches he dieace, meanwhile Rand and Peter who grew up rich boys are the ones who talk about nukes and are the most war hawkish. It's true.

That's the difference between Rand and his daddy. One talks about peace.

If Ron runs for president I have a $1000 waiting on him, if his son does I have $25 for him.

You can not smear a war veteran as being against the army and stuff. You can do it very effectively with someone who has not been in the army.

That can explain why the ones who have not been in the military have somewhat more hawkish declarations, to protect themselves.

[Baptist]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=240471

[cheapseats]

Maybe you should hold off on the declarations for Rand and wait to see how he actually votes. Remember he's on campaign now. Ron has had chances time and again to prove his principles. Wait for the votes then we'll see what Rand believes.

Ass backward.

Who does not call BULLSHIT on Senate Judiciary Committee refusal to ask Supreme Court Nominees DIRECTLY what are their honest-to-God positions on real-life issues?

Who would not liked to have seen Nancy Pelosi struck dead by lightning when she said we could learn what's in the health insurance bill by passing it?

[teamrican1]

Thoughts?
This has been brought up before, but Ron and Adam who have served in the forces, frequently talk about peace, meanwhile Rand and Peter who grew up rich boys are the ones who talk about nukes and are the most war hawkish. It's true.


Peter Schiff argued against the Iraq War during the prewar debate period, which is something very few Republicans were willing to do.

And Ron Paul's rhetoric only became vehemently anti-war in recent years. Buffy Sainte-Marie was not being played during any of his campaign events of the 1970's and 1980's. To the contrary, Ron always played up his military service (without confessing any guilt about it) because it scored him points in his strongly pro-military district, fit with the Cold War times, and provided him cover against his other out of the mainstream positions.