Entire Fox News panel beats up on Rand Paul

[ObiRandKenobi]

in order to disagree with him they had to bring up u.s. teaming up with Stalin.


No one on the panel thought it relevant that it was al-Qaeda that attacked the United States– not Iran, whose new President wished Jews a “blessed Rosh Hashanah”… (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57601484/irans-new-president-wishes-jews-a-blessed-rosh-hashanah/)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRUeJYFZ94


h/t MP (http://www.mofopolitics.com/2013/09/05/charles-krauthammer-we-allied-with-stalin-during-wwii-why-not-ally-with-al-qaeda-today/)

[Kords21]

Warmongers gonna monger...

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I kind of like that they're beating up on Rand Paul. Shows he's a lot more prominent than the other Congressmen and Senators who oppose intervening in Syria.

[ClydeCoulter]

Perhaps we should have a discussion, Krauthammer, as to whether that alliance with Stalin was a good thing, eh?

And yes, our government has a history of hypocrisy when it comes to it policies, that's what we've been talking about (Ron, Rand, et al)

[dannno]

I guess that means we're still winning. If you have an opponent who is highly agreeable and you never agree with them it makes you look insane. So if you can agree with them to garner some credibility then later break them down, that seems to be the strategy of Fox News.

[Kords21]

So, just because we've allied ourselves with bad people before, we should do it again? I guess we'll just overlook that little thing that happened on 9/11 and give Al-Qaeda everything they want.

[radiofriendly]

I cannot believe that this happened. You can't help but laugh!

I made a post about it...included Pat Benatar's 'Hit Me With Your Best Shot!'
http://iroots.org/2013/09/05/neocons-best-case-for-syrian-war-rebels-like-our-friend-stalin-in-wwii/
Come on, Charles Krauthammer, What's your best case for war? Hit me with your best shot!

Wait for it…

“We were allies with Stalin, the 2nd worst man on the planet, in WWII.” What are we waiting for?
http://iroots.org/wp-content/uploads/charles.png (http://iroots.org/2013/09/05/neocons-best-case-for-syrian-war-rebels-like-our-friend-stalin-in-wwii/)

[James Madison]

And teaming up with Stalin sure worked out well. Right, guys? :rolleyes:

[cajuncocoa]

they're coming around.....

[sluggo]

Good to see Fox going back to their natural state.

[Saint Vitus]

Propaganda at its finest. Goebbels would be proud of Fox News.

[AuH20]

Yet, as with Obama, if one looks beyond Rand's finely-polished rhetoric, it becomes apparent that what he says and what he actually supports are quite different. Rand, like Obama, supports maintaining U.S. bases on foreign soil. Like Obama, he wants to keep the torturous hellhole at Guantanamo Bay open. Like Obama, he wants to continue inflicting harsh economic sanctions against Iran over a nonexistent nuclear weapons program. And like Obama, he wants to continue the expensive, racist, and failed war on drugs.

But what makes this partisan role reversal even more chillingly Orwellian is that one can find numerous examples of Rand's online supporters even using the same excuses to defend him that Obama supporters used: "He's our best chance!"; "We'll never have a perfect candidate - don't be a purist!"; "He doesn't really mean what he's saying/doing, he's just trying to infiltrate the party - once he gets into office, he's going to change the system from within and implement his covert agenda!" These responses were baseless when Obama supporters used them, and they're baseless now as the Paul supporters use them.

On the flipside to all of this, as Republicans morph into the Democrats of 2008, Democrats are morphing into the Republicans of the same time period. Polling data shows that Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Guantanamo open, and invasive spying programs - the very same policies they originally campaigned against to get Obama elected.

In any case, what's clear is that Rand and the Republicans are shamelessly attempting to capitalize on Obama's horrible civil liberties record like Obama capitalized on the horrible civil liberties record of George W. Bush. It's the same strategy with different faces and a different party, and if Rand gets into office come 2016, there should be little doubt that he will dismantle the liberty movement and merge it with the Republican Party in the same way that Obama dismantled the progressive movement and merged it with the Democratic Party. By his own admission, Rand isn't even a libertarian, but as was the case with Obama and progressives, Rand pandering to libertarians offers a convenient way to boost his voter base.

For the mere sake of finally abolishing the seemingly endless bipartisan circlejerk, one can only hope that liberty-minded individuals won't be suckered in by Rand in the same way that progressives were suckered in by Obama. The appeal of wanting a savior to roll back this country's aggressive foreign policy and overbearing government is understandable, but if past elections are a teaching tool for anything worthwhile, it's that the two-party system has offered nothing but an endless supply of snakeoil hucksters willing to fuel their campaigns with false promises and lie their way to power: http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com/2013/08/republicans-are-new-democrats-democrats.html

Rand is just like Obama, just because he doesn't tailor to your issues? Hmmm. Interesting 'logic.'

[JK/SEA]

Jhonflin, Rand Paul is a U.S. Senator. His rhetoric and voting record are consistant. As to comparing him to Obama is a bit presumptuous, as Rand is an unknown at this point as a President.

The way i look at it, i see nothing changing from DEM to REPUB. both the same, and the staus quo continues.

Your solution is.....what?....not support Rand for President?...vote another DEM in office?...Vote another REPUB into office?

nice try though.

[MrGoose]

They're acknowledging the fact that we would be helping our enemies and trying to justify it. Even my neocon mom doesn't want to go attack these countries.


if one looks beyond Rand's finely-polished rhetoric, it becomes apparent that what he says and what he actually supports are quite different. Rand, like Obama, supports maintaining U.S. bases on foreign soil. Like Obama, he wants to keep the torturous hellhole at Guantanamo Bay open. Like Obama, he wants to continue inflicting harsh economic sanctions against Iran over a nonexistent nuclear weapons program. And like Obama, he wants to continue the expensive, racist, and failed war on drugs.

But what makes this partisan role reversal even more chillingly Orwellian is that one can find numerous examples of Rand's online supporters even using the same excuses to defend him that Obama supporters used: "He's our best chance!"; "We'll never have a perfect candidate - don't be a purist!"; "He doesn't really mean what he's saying/doing, he's just trying to infiltrate the party - once he gets into office, he's going to change the system from within and implement his covert agenda!" These responses were baseless when Obama supporters used them, and they're baseless now as the Paul supporters use them.

On the flipside to all of this, as Republicans morph into the Democrats of 2008, Democrats are morphing into the Republicans of the same time period. Polling data shows that Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Guantanamo open, and invasive spying programs - the very same policies they originally campaigned against to get Obama elected.

In any case, what's clear is that Rand and the Republicans are shamelessly attempting to capitalize on Obama's horrible civil liberties record like Obama capitalized on the horrible civil liberties record of George W. Bush. It's the same strategy with different faces and a different party, and if Rand gets into office come 2016, there should be little doubt that he will dismantle the liberty movement and merge it with the Republican Party in the same way that Obama dismantled the progressive movement and merged it with the Democratic Party. By his own admission, Rand isn't even a libertarian, but as was the case with Obama and progressives, Rand pandering to libertarians offers a convenient way to boost his voter base.

For the mere sake of finally abolishing the seemingly endless bipartisan circlejerk, one can only hope that liberty-minded individuals won't be suckered in by Rand in the same way that progressives were suckered in by Obama. The appeal of wanting a savior to roll back this country's aggressive foreign policy and overbearing government is understandable, but if past elections are a teaching tool for anything worthwhile, it's that the two-party system has offered nothing but an endless supply of snakeoil hucksters willing to fuel their campaigns with false promises and lie their way to power: http://screechingkettle.blogspot.com...democrats.html
I don't think anyone can dismantle the progressive or liberty movements. Progressives are still around and a majority of them are against Obama on Syria and the NSA. There will always blind supporters of whatever their party tells them to support. As with Rand, I trust him and he has so far been proving himself as a liberty republican. My most basic rule is I trust Ron Paul, and he says I can trust his son Rand, so I do. If Rand does something that would ruin that trust, which he has not so far (and is in fact making me proud), then I will stop supporting him.

[Cleaner44]

I guess that means we're still winning. If you have an opponent who is highly agreeable and you never agree with them it makes you look insane. So if you can agree with them to garner some credibility then later break them down, that seems to be the strategy of Fox News.

This really is fantastic. Most everyday Americans agree with Rand and so the idiots at Fox News are only discrediting themselves by bashing Rand. The people at Fox may think that they will influence people to back their neocon war, but they will only make people shake their heads at the stupidity.

WINNING!

[Saint Vitus]

One year ago, I would have probably sounded pretty similar to jhonflin. I thought Rand Paul completely jumped the shark, sold out, kissed Israel ass, groveled to neocons, etc. etc. He has since won me back with a series of principled stands, first with the drones and now with the situation in Syria. Is he better than Ron Paul? No. But he's much better than all the rest of these asshole senators, and that's good enough for me. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

edit: I guess his posts were deleted

[cajuncocoa]

One year ago, I would have probably sounded pretty similar to jhonflin. I thought Rand Paul completely jumped the shark, sold out, kissed Israel ass, groveled to neocons, etc. etc. He has since won me back with a series of principled stands, first with the drones and now with the situation in Syria. Is he better than Ron Paul? No. But he's much better than all the rest of these asshole senators, and that's good enough for me. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Me too. +rep

[helenpaul]

no one cares what fox thinks.

[cajuncocoa]

no one cares what fox thinks.
unfortunately, that isn't true.

[puppetmaster]

My folks we fox fleas, now they laugh st them also.

[Christian Liberty]

They're acknowledging the fact that we would be helping our enemies and trying to justify it. Even my neocon mom doesn't want to go attack these countries.


I don't think anyone can dismantle the progressive or liberty movements. Progressives are still around and a majority of them are against Obama on Syria and the NSA. There will always blind supporters of whatever their party tells them to support. As with Rand, I trust him and he has so far been proving himself as a liberty republican. My most basic rule is I trust Ron Paul, and he says I can trust his son Rand, so I do. If Rand does something that would ruin that trust, which he has not so far (and is in fact making me proud), then I will stop supporting him.

While I do support Rand, to say that he hasn't done ANYTHING worthy of questioning his trust, I don't think that's entirely true. I think I know why he made some of those votes, but he has made questionable votes that make me wonder. I think at the end of the day, this is revolution of ideas, not individuals. If Rand Paul gets into the White House, any evil in government which he does not oppose should nonetheless be opposed by us, exactly as we'd oppose it no matter who else was in the White House.

[NewRightLibertarian]

unfortunately, that isn't true.

People do care about them unfortunately, but the public is overwhelmingly in our favor on this one. The more the usual suspects try their usual bullshit, the more idiotic and out of touch they look

[Brian4Liberty]

Poor neo-Trot Krauthammer. Still all butt-hurt about his hero Trotsky losing the power struggle for the Soviet Union to Stalin. Too bad Trotsky didn't win. Then Kristol and Krauthammer would be in the former Soviet Union right now, speaking Russian and teaching the history of the great communist revolution in a High School in Siberia.

[RP Supporter]

And anyone who knows history must seriously question our choice to ally with Stalin. What did it get us? Besides condemning millions of people to tyranny and having the world live in fear of a nuclear war for the next 50 years, I mean. Not to mention the allies we later made against the soviet union who eventually turned on us once the cold war was over. I'm sure if we intervened in Syria we'd see something along the same lines.

Maybe, just maybe, we should stop allying with the bad guys and hoping they help us take care of the worse( for the moment) guys.

[TheGrinch]

While I do support Rand, to say that he hasn't done ANYTHING worthy of questioning his trust, I don't think that's entirely true. I think I know why he made some of those votes, but he has made questionable votes that make me wonder. I think at the end of the day, this is revolution of ideas, not individuals. If Rand Paul gets into the White House, any evil in government which he does not oppose should nonetheless be opposed by us, exactly as we'd oppose it no matter who else was in the White House.

I am perfectly content with a world where Rand moves the chains while we continue to demand for more. That's a winning strategy IMO, and is exactly how the statists got us to where we are today....

Well, not perfectly content, but best we can hope for...

[LibertyEagle]

Personally, I think that video was HILARIOUS. Krauthammer, the dipshit who wants to back the group of people who were responsible for bombing America on 9/11, so that they may attack Assad, who has done absolutely nothing to us. Only a traitor would recommend something like that.

[Dary]

We need to make peace with Iran, ally with Russia, make a deal with Assad and turn our attention to the Saudi's....

Whoa......where'd that come from?

What I meant to type was....We need to get the frak out of there and leave those people alone.

I've been watching too much FOX News...yikes!:eek:

[S.Shorland]

Helms and Krauthammer are really in a corner.Making such a ridiculous analogy is the sign they really have nowhere else to go.America WILL NOT stop until it is drawn up in battle formation against Russia and China.

*EDIT You were NOT fighting WITH Stalin in one theatre and AGAINST him in another AS YOU WILL be against Al-Qaeda.

[KingNothing]

Krauthammer can't keel over soon enough. He's a worthless pile of garbage.

[LibertyEagle]

they're coming around.....

Krauthammer is a true neocon. I don't recall anyone ever claiming that they would come around.

[cajuncocoa]

Krauthammer is a true neocon. I don't recall anyone ever claiming that they would come around.

Lighten up, LE.

[Bastiat's The Law]

And anyone who knows history must seriously question our choice to ally with Stalin. What did it get us? Besides condemning millions of people to tyranny and having the world live in fear of a nuclear war for the next 50 years, I mean. Not to mention the allies we later made against the soviet union who eventually turned on us once the cold war was over. I'm sure if we intervened in Syria we'd see something along the same lines.

Maybe, just maybe, we should stop allying with the bad guys and hoping they help us take care of the worse( for the moment) guys.

Russia took the brunt of the German war machine. The fighting during D-Day and the western front looks like child's play in comparison to the eastern front. Russia was basically a punching bag at the initial/intermediate stages. Was the tradeoff worth giving Stalin carte blanche after Germany's defeat? That's a very intriguing and debatable question.

All that aside, Krauthammer looks like an idiot using that example to bolster his argument.

[Brian4Liberty]

All that aside, Krauthammer looks like an idiot using that example to bolster his argument.

It's always on his mind.

[jllundqu]

Jesus.... "We were allies with Stalin... what's the big deal?" With that logic, all I can say is the future does not bode well for humanity.

[ObiRandKenobi]

Jesus.... "We were allies with Stalin... what's the big deal?" With that logic, all I can say is the future does not bode well for humanity.

how has he decided which of the actors in the middle east is stalin and which is hitler?

[jbauer]

And teaming up with Stalin sure worked out well. Right, guys? :rolleyes:

What didn't work with Stalin. Our alliance ended ww2. All the crap afterwards was because we didn't go into it without spelling out the spoils prior to it. I'm quite convinced we would not have won without the red army bogging down the eastern front.

[Superfly]

What didn't work with Stalin. Our alliance ended ww2.

Oh...probably the deaths of millions of people as a direct result of Stalin's rule.

If you look at the events of WWII in a vacuum (We were at war with Hitler, therefore we allied with Stalin), you commit a severe error of overlooking why exactly we had either Hitler or Stalin to pick from and that impossible choice was because we entered into WWI and allowed for the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles that totally led to Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin.

When you ally with tyrants, it WILL come back to bite you in the long run. We entered WWI, a European regional conflict, which caused Hitler and Stalin to both come to power, Hitler dies but Stalin lives on and kills millions and plunges a large portion of the human population into the slavery of the Soviet Union. That's what didn't work.

[TheGrinch]

A more appropriate analogy would be that the US armed the "rebels" in Afghanistan (al-quada) to fight the Russians. How did that turn out for the US and Afghanistan?

But yeah, I'm sure that arming and supporting terrorists will go over much better this time :rolleyes:

[FriedChicken]

A more appropriate analogy would be that the US armed the "rebels" in Afghanistan (al-quada) to fight the Russians. How did that turn out for the US and Afghanistan?

But yeah, I'm sure that arming and supporting terrorists will go over much better this time :rolleyes:

Even the situation back then had more logic to it than this war!
The Syrian war is just really really stupid. I'm not a history expert but most of our interventions that I'm aware of had much better excuses than launching missiles at Syria.

[specsaregood]

Krauthammer is a true neocon. I don't recall anyone ever claiming that they would come around.

krauthammer wants to take americans guns away, but aid al-Qaida. And this is a guy whose opinion foxnews thinks is worth airing?

[paulbot24]

So, just because we've allied ourselves with bad people before, we should do it again? I guess we'll just overlook that little thing that happened on 9/11 and give Al-Qaeda everything they want.

Apparently we've forgiven them. Hey, we only said "we will never forget" after 9/11. Apparently, we're currently on the forgiveness step. This reminds me of the Taliban. Oh yeah, them. After the press found out about their new digs in Qatar, the Taliban is in the process of relocating their political office to Pakistan. Don't want too much chatter in the media about quiet little countries like Qatar and U.A.E. that hold enormous power. Sooooo, we're arming and supporting AL-Queda, while conducting sort of secret "peace" talks with the Taliban......Besides sarin-Assad, who is left on their terrorist list these days besides the American people?

[ObiRandKenobi]

Hey, we only said "we will never forget" after 9/11.

haha

[Bastiat's The Law]

krauthammer wants to take americans guns away, but aid al-Qaida. And this is a guy whose opinion foxnews thinks is worth airing?

I think there's a lot of self-interest and self-preservation in Krauthammer's and Kristol's comments. If non-intervention is the main menu option Americans are ordering and Rand Paul embodies that in 2016 and wins, what do these guys do? They will have lost their entire credibility (finally, thankfully). The liberty movement and non-interventionism winning means their out of a job. You'll seem them come unhinged like Rove did on live tv when Romney lost. Get your popcorn ready!

[ObiRandKenobi]

I think there's a lot of self-interest and self-preservation in Krauthammer's and Kristol's comments.

ego too. fancy yourself an opinion and intellectual leader and now you forced to confront the fact nobody cares what you think. must ouch.

[specsaregood]

I think there's a lot of self-interest and self-preservation in Krauthammer's and Kristol's comments. If non-intervention is the main menu option Americans are ordering and Rand Paul embodies that in 2016 and wins, what do these guys do? They will have lost their entire credibility (finally, thankfully). The liberty movement and non-interventionism winning means their out of a job. You'll seem them come unhinged like Rove did on live tv when Romney lost. Get your popcorn ready!

I disagree. The market for the dissenting voice is always available. As you know, most of these talking heads get better ratings when their party of choice is out of power.

[politics]

Probably the worst example ever!!!!!! Because STALIN didn't attack the US, who did attack the US was Japan and became the first country in the world bombed with nukes.