Why do you guys like Rand Paul so much?

[cdc482]

Please post here explaining why you support him.
For me, I don't like his foreign policy. Although he doesn't discuss it (except in his book), this is the main role of President as I see it.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Rand, but nowhere near as much as Ron or Johnson.

[Sola_Fide]

http://www.jerzeedevil.com/gallery/files/4/thread_failed.gif

[MRoCkEd]

Please post here explaining why you support him.
For me, I don't like his foreign policy. Although he doesn't discuss it (except in his book), this is the main role of President as I see it.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Rand, but nowhere near as much as Ron or Johnson.

What don't you like about his foreign policy views?

[squarepusher]

lol hes the best senator right now, hows that for a start?

[Sola_Fide]

What don't you like about his foreign policy views?

Don't even ask a troll a serious question...

Any non-interventionist who "doesn't like" Rand's foreign policy chapter needs their head examined.

[Ethek]

Having met him, worked on his campaign, written a book introduction on this topic, and to paraphrase Jack Hunter 'After having met Rand Paul, studied all his speeches and letcures there is not a dimes worth of diffrence between Rand and Ron.

I think its hard not to get hung up on brand names, Ron frankly has become a brand... its a little concerning to have all the liberty eggs in one basket that way.

Rand is a smart guy, and shrewed enough to keep to principles without talking himself into political marginalization (such as Gary on the Pot issue)

Work out the anxiety and find a way to reassure yourself that Rand is one of us. Rand is not going to be able to do it for you.

Oh, The Book Discovering Possibility (http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Possibility-Conservative-Manifesto-Classical/dp/1456327267/)

[jct74]

I like his hair.

[Matt Collins]

I like his hair.
For me it's the sideburns that does it!

[sevin]

He's cute.

[sailingaway]

Who?


In any event, Gary Johnson is a nonstarter to me, too much of an internationalist and interventionist, too comfortable with the fed, and drugs aren't catnip to me, just a matter of philosophical consistency and economics.

[ctiger2]

I like how he starts every answer with "The interesting thing is..."

[cdc482]

I went on Rand's official Senate 2010 website, and under foreign policy he was clearly stated that the US has the authority and obligation to defend themselves and their interests abroad through preemptive strikes. Once I read that, I dismissed him.
Can you show me o/w?

[JoshLowry]

Rand voted against the Re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

That should give you an idea of his national defense policies.

[JoshLowry]

Rand voted against the Re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

That should give you an idea of his national defense policies.

[BamaFanNKy]

Three words. Sword of Damocles.

[Brett85]

I went on Rand's official Senate 2010 website, and under foreign policy he was clearly stated that the US has the authority and obligation to defend themselves and their interests abroad through preemptive strikes. Once I read that, I dismissed him.
Can you show me o/w?

B.S. If you have evidence of that, provide a link. I never read anything like that on his website. If you support a non interventionist foreign policy, then you should have a problem with Gary Johnson since he supports humanitarian wars.

[Ethek]

Three words. Sword of Damocles.

Love this!

[amy31416]

He fights for my unalienable rights to a big-ass toilet...and he has an awesome sense of style.

[muzzled dogg]

he spoke at the boston tea party with the likes of edwin viera then came out to have a beer with us after

[TheDriver]

Please post here explaining why you support him.
For me, I don't like his foreign policy. Although he doesn't discuss it (except in his book), this is the main role of President as I see it.

Don't get me wrong, I do like Rand, but nowhere near as much as Ron or Johnson.

I don't like you. I don't know anything about your foreign policy, either.


I like Rand because: He's my senator, and he was head-over-heels the best candidate in the state for the job.

[radiofriendly]

I went on Rand's official Senate 2010 website, and under foreign policy he was clearly stated that the US has the authority and obligation to defend themselves and their interests abroad through preemptive strikes. Once I read that, I dismissed him.
Can you show me o/w? ? ? ?

Even during the campaign he said and posted this on his official site.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/08/not-your-typical-politician-rands-plan/

Not your typical politician – Rand’s plan
Published on 06 August 2010 by admin in General News

An agenda unlike any politician in the country

Dear Patriot,

Sometimes, the political process makes us all just a bit cynical and jaded — my self included. We look at what the Washington DC establishment — the career politicians, the corporate lobbyists, and the entrenched bureaucracy has brought us, and we throw up our hands, thinking, they’re all the same.

I don’t like to yell too loud, or beat my chest. But I want to take a moment to remind you why I am not your typical politician, and why this is not a typical campaign or movement.

Among the many reasons:

■I will never, ever vote for a taxpayer bailout of a private industry. Whether it’s big banks, automakers, or any other industry — you succeed or fail on your own.
■I will not vote for an unbalanced budget. I will not vote for a tax increase. Ever.
■I will fight for new rules like a Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limits.
■I will not take ANYTHING off the table in the fight to balance the budget. Anyone who says something like they will “freeze non-defense discretionary spending” is blowing smoke at you and hoping you won’t notice. That would balance the budget — MAYBE — in about 80 years.
■We have to keep our promises to seniors and keep our country strong, but every area has things that can be cut. Every agency has things that are duplicative or that could be done better or cheaper.
■I will propose and force a vote on an Enumerated Powers Act, to force Congress to point to the part of the Constitution that justifies their bills.
■I will fight for the Bill of Rights. Democrats often love the 4th amendment. Republicans the 2nd. I will fight for them all, which means fighting for your free speech, gun rights, and civil liberties. Laws that infringe on ANY of these make the federal government more powerful, and we cannot continue to allow that.
■I will not allow our troops to be the world’s policeman, and I will force a vote on a Declaration of War if any President seeks to commit our military to battle.
What you’ve just read above is an agenda unlike any politician in the country. While solidly conservative, it also shows first, a great loyalty to the Constitution and to our freedom. You cannot fight for liberty while voting for bills that embolden the state. You cannot fight for some of our founding rights without others. And you cannot enable change in Washington by sending the same old people there.

For anyone who thinks elections don’t matter, or all candidates are the same, I urge you to read this one more time. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that few candidates running for office this year will so fully embrace this agenda of freedom and prosperity, of fighting the power of the federal government while working to ensure that the rights of Americans are restored.

_______________________________________________
What more would anyone else HERE need?

[BamaFanNKy]

Love this!

I tend to support candidates who give obscure references that make you use google.

[cdc482]

? ? ?

Even during the campaign he said and posted this on his official site.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/08/not-your-typical-politician-rands-plan/

Not your typical politician – Rand’s plan
Published on 06 August 2010 by admin in General News

An agenda unlike any politician in the country

Dear Patriot,

Sometimes, the political process makes us all just a bit cynical and jaded — my self included. We look at what the Washington DC establishment — the career politicians, the corporate lobbyists, and the entrenched bureaucracy has brought us, and we throw up our hands, thinking, they’re all the same.

I don’t like to yell too loud, or beat my chest. But I want to take a moment to remind you why I am not your typical politician, and why this is not a typical campaign or movement.

Among the many reasons:

■I will never, ever vote for a taxpayer bailout of a private industry. Whether it’s big banks, automakers, or any other industry — you succeed or fail on your own.
■I will not vote for an unbalanced budget. I will not vote for a tax increase. Ever.
■I will fight for new rules like a Balanced Budget Amendment and Term Limits.
■I will not take ANYTHING off the table in the fight to balance the budget. Anyone who says something like they will “freeze non-defense discretionary spending” is blowing smoke at you and hoping you won’t notice. That would balance the budget — MAYBE — in about 80 years.
■We have to keep our promises to seniors and keep our country strong, but every area has things that can be cut. Every agency has things that are duplicative or that could be done better or cheaper.
■I will propose and force a vote on an Enumerated Powers Act, to force Congress to point to the part of the Constitution that justifies their bills.
■I will fight for the Bill of Rights. Democrats often love the 4th amendment. Republicans the 2nd. I will fight for them all, which means fighting for your free speech, gun rights, and civil liberties. Laws that infringe on ANY of these make the federal government more powerful, and we cannot continue to allow that.
■I will not allow our troops to be the world’s policeman, and I will force a vote on a Declaration of War if any President seeks to commit our military to battle.
What you’ve just read above is an agenda unlike any politician in the country. While solidly conservative, it also shows first, a great loyalty to the Constitution and to our freedom. You cannot fight for liberty while voting for bills that embolden the state. You cannot fight for some of our founding rights without others. And you cannot enable change in Washington by sending the same old people there.

For anyone who thinks elections don’t matter, or all candidates are the same, I urge you to read this one more time. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that few candidates running for office this year will so fully embrace this agenda of freedom and prosperity, of fighting the power of the federal government while working to ensure that the rights of Americans are restored.

_______________________________________________
What more would anyone else HERE need?

This is much more helpful than the other comments. Thanks

[radiofriendly]

This is much more helpful than the other comments. Thanks

And the hair and the blue tie with the orange shirt...and the shoes.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IHUOR2URg7w/S9txv58sk_I/AAAAAAAAACk/sySfT5_oY4Q/s1600/paulsshoes.jpg

[sailingaway]

I went on Rand's official Senate 2010 website, and under foreign policy he was clearly stated that the US has the authority and obligation to defend themselves and their interests abroad through preemptive strikes. Once I read that, I dismissed him.
Can you show me o/w?

Bullshit.

And definitely the shoes.....

[sailingaway]

This is much more helpful than the other comments. Thanks

Read his book. The longest chapter is on foreign policy. It's $12.39 at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Tea-Party-Goes-Washington/dp/1455503118/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1300382847&sr=1-1

And watch this, as one of many examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htRmd6xtYBo

3:50 is where the real foreign policy stuff starts.

And that is Afghanistan; he has always said he was against going into Iraq, which is where the preemptive war came in.

Also, when you know him, you know he is always trying to really push the envelope, but not seem incredible with radicalism past the point where he'd be able to drag the conversation. He does that in a lot of things, and it is a different approach than 'exciting people with the ideal' that Ron uses to fire people up. But Rand is always WELL beyond where anyone else is willing to go, and is always pulling the conversation in his direction. Personally, I think it is a style thing, but each person really has to get comfortable by themselves. That is why you got the hair comments. What do you want us to do? Scramble your brains for you? It's an internal thing you have to deal with on your own.

[Who girl]

He amuses me......in a good way

[Brett85]

This is much more helpful than the other comments. Thanks

Well you obviously weren't paying any attention then. Rand has made his foreign policy views quite clear for some time. He stated he was opposed to invading Iraq from the very beginning of his campaign.

[ronaldo23]

I went on Rand's official Senate 2010 website, and under foreign policy he was clearly stated that the US has the authority and obligation to defend themselves and their interests abroad through preemptive strikes. Once I read that, I dismissed him.
Can you show me o/w?

LOL...no it didn't. He has always made a huge deal about DECLARING war, being against Iraq, being against the patriot act, being against US action towards Libya, ending aid to Israel, and he has tons of reservations about Afghanistan. He's said on the campaign trail that he wants to reduce troops in Japan, Korea, and Western Europe now that the cold war is over and that we can't afford it.

Maybe you are getting confused because he always prefaces defense talks with "well, I think the most important function of the federal government is defense , and in my budget I'd have an even greater percentage go towards the military." He says this to appeal to the neo-cons and cover up his non-interventionist views, because he knows how much the media will marginalize him and call him isolationist like they did Ron. But what he also says is that his total budget would be substantially smaller, and that therefore military spending would be much less than it is now even if it's a larger percentage.

[sailingaway]

he says the most important function of federal govt (meaning one of the few Constitutional powers of the federal govt, at ALL) is DEFENSE. Not defense spending. And he has made it very clear he sees a difference between 'defense' and 'military', which has waste.

[Matt Collins]

Well since we're going there lol....















http://www.poyi.org/68/photos/12/68-12-marame-03.jpg

[cdc482]

Thanks guys. I look forward to hearing more from Rand Paul now.

I was just confused. When I heard he was running for Senate I immidiately checked his website, and found this:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/

My biggest upsets were GITMO and what he said about visas. I hate the idea of barring 10 countries from coming to the US.

I did misinterpret some of it now that I read it again. He's not as great as Ron, but I am more excited about him after the new info you gave me so thanks.

[cdc482]

The first video is pretty good. I think it's inconsistent of him to say we should bar 10 countries from entering the US.
It's the same arguement as the arguement against the mosque, for the internment camps, against immigration.
People are people everywhere. Just because I live in a state with a killer doesn't make me a killer. Just because I am born German like Hitler doesn't make me guilty of genocide.
It makes me wonder how he could say this if he is as honest as his father...

[sailingaway]

Thanks guys. I look forward to hearing more from Rand Paul now.

I was just confused. When I heard he was running for Senate I immidiately checked his website, and found this:
http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/

My biggest upsets were GITMO and what he said about visas. I hate the idea of barring 10 countries from coming to the US.

I did misinterpret some of it now that I read it again. He's not as great as Ron, but I am more excited about him after the new info you gave me so thanks.

You can't take those policies in a vacuum, you have to weigh them against the alternative being suggested. Ron suggested the visa thing instead of creating DHS TSA, and the Patriot Act for example. His feeling was that it would be limited and not as intrusive into at least domestic privacy and civil liberties, more manageable. It was also draconian enough that there would be pressure to lift it as soon as the mindset changed. (Mind you, it was only 4 countries, then.) Ron would rather have a tough, changeable control at the border, than invasive intrusion into all our lives inside the border. Particularly since the latter requires an agency, and once an agency exists, it becomes a constituency and a special interest seeking more power, and self perpetuates.

Regarding Gitmo, when Rand was asked about this, Obama was talking about just moving Gitmo to the states, but keeping people in indefinite preventative detention if they 'couldn't' have trials. Rand didn't want people from Gitmo released here, but he also didn't want indefinite preventative detention and trials at Gitmo immediately is better than that. There are differences between Ron and Rand, but there are also reasons for some of what he says. When Ron was discussing Gitmo he wasn't ever thinking there would be indefinite preventative detention.

Here, you'll be interested AT LEAST from 6:50 on (Libya, indefinite, preventative detention)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMG8XNqRlU0

However, in the end, we will need to see his votes, on various issues. And you have to find your own level of comfort, we can't give it to you. However, Johnson has DEFINITELY said HE could be in favor of 'humanitarian' wars, so I really wonder that you like him better.

[brandon]

Well the interesting thing is, I like him more and more as time goes by. His campaign rhetoric was a big turn off but he's turning out to be a pretty good guy.

[Matt Collins]

Well the interesting thing is, I like him more and more as time goes by. His campaign rhetoric was a big turn off but he's turning out to be a pretty good guy.



http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/Campaign%20VI/Toldja.jpg