Rand Paul Just Outed Himself

[Anti Federalist]

Rand Paul Just Outed Himself

by eric • March 17, 2014

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/03/17/rand-paul-just-outed/

Rand Paul is one of them.

Maybe they got to him. Maybe they have the negatives. Or maybe he was just never one of us, no matter how much some of us may have hoped he might be. It doesn’t matter why. What does matter is that Rand Paul has added his voice to the neocon warble that could very well lead the world to a nuclear war over . . . Crimea.

It’s the Sarajevo of 2014.

Why the ruckus? Power politics, of course. There is oil in them that hills, for one. Well, natural gas. Lots of it. Oceans of it, in fact. All set to be sold to Europe for other-than-dollars. This is an affront the Petro-dollar’s puppets in the Offal Office cannot abide. They went Medieval on Saddam – and then, Muammar – for precisely this reason.

And will do so again.

The United State (singular on purpose) would be wrecked if any major player got away with trading energy without trading it for dollars. Putin threatens to do this. Ergo, Putin must go. The problem – for you and me and everyone else caught in the middle of this maelstrom – is that unlike Saddam or Muammar – Vladimir does have weapons of mass destruction. The real deal, too. Not a handful of low-yield first-gen atomic M80s, either. And he has the means to send them our way. This – and the fact that a serious white person such as ex-KGB Colonel Putin holds the launch codes ought to give a sane person pause.

It was thought – briefly – that Rand Paul was sane.

Clearly, he is not.

In a just-published Time article, the son of the usually-sensible Ron Paul writes: “It is America’s duty to condemn these actions in no uncertain terms. It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression.” Italics added for obvious – depressing – reasons.

And then, this:

“Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation . . .Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community.”

Except Putin did not invade Ukraine, the people of Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia (self-determination, anyone?) and the “international community” is a rhetorical fiction deployed by warmongers like George W. Bush, Barack Obama and – now – Rand Paul.

By joining them, he’s proved he can’t beat them. Or doesn’t want to beat them. Or can’t be trusted to try.

Regardless, he’s given all of you fair warning. In the immortal words of The Chimp:

Fool me once, shame on… shame on… won’t get fooled again.

[Smitty]

I'm tired of Rand's stuff.

Just go away.

[bronc_fan23]

I love it, you have all the Neo-Cons saying he is too soft and an 'isolationist,' and then people on here stating he is being too much of a neo-con.

[Petar]

Well, I still trust him, but I guess that I can't really say too much to defend the somewhat neoconish disposition that he is demonstrating here.

I guess that all I can really say is that the guy is walking the tightrope of ages, and I can't really fault him too much if perhaps some of the rhetoric is a little bit imbalanced.

Again, I still trust him as a well intentioned human being that generally shares our values as non-interventionists...

[r3volution 3.0]

I love it, you have all the Neo-Cons saying he is too soft and an 'isolationist,' and then people on here stating he is being too much of a neo-con.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right...
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DohRa9lsx0Q)

[V3n]

words words words

I judge him by his actions (read: votes) - still very satisfied thus far.

[qh4dotcom]

Anti-Federalist, Rand can't run for president if he takes the side of Putin.

[acptulsa]

Either walking your military into another country is right or it's wrong. It isn't right for Russia and wrong for the U.S. You can't take this side on principle today and that side on principle tomorrow, because if you do you have no more genuine principles than a liberal. Crimea may have voted to secede from the Ukraine, and that may have even been a legitimate vote. But that doesn't mean Russia has a right to occupy before the people of the Ukraine even have time to digest that vote. It isn't unreasonable to expect them to forbear until the Ukranians have time to decide if separation is unquestionably the answer, and make preparations for it if it is--such as, perhaps, helping those who don't want anything to do with Russia to relocate.

Of course, maybe Russia is just reacting to the EU being too proactive in this thing as well. But the first wrong doesn't make it illegitimate to object to the second wrong...

[squarepusher]

doesn't "outing" usually refer to exposing a gay person?

[angelatc]

Well, I still trust him, but I guess that I can't really say too much to defend the somewhat neoconish disposition that he is demonstrating here.

I guess that all I can really say is that the guy is walking the tightrope of ages, and I can't really fault him too much if perhaps some of the rhetoric is a little bit imbalanced.

Again, I still trust him as a well intentioned human being that generally shares our values as non-interventionists...

Agreed 100%. We won't get a candidate elected with Ron Paul's non-interventionist rhetoric.

[donnay]

Sen. Rand Paul: U.S. Must Take Strong Action Against Putin’s Aggression

Sen. Rand Paul
March 9, 2014

In an op-ed for TIME, Senator Rand Paul argues that if he were President, he would take a harder stance against the Russian President for his actions: "Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community"

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community. His continuing occupation of Ukraine is completely unacceptable, and Russia’s President should be isolated for his actions.

It is America’s duty to condemn these actions in no uncertain terms. It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression.

Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.

This does not and should not require military action. No one in the U.S. is calling for this. But it will require other actions and leadership, both of which President Obama unfortunately lacks.

I recommend a number of specific and decisive measures to punish Putin for his ongoing aggression.

Economic sanctions and visa bans should be imposed and enforced without delay. I would urge our European allies to leverage their considerable weight with Russia and take the lead on imposing these penalties. I would do everything in my power to aggressively market and export America’s vast natural gas resources to Europe.

Continued... (http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/)

[Lucille]

I know I'm disappointed. Is that what a foreign policy "realist" would say? I don't know. I'll have to check with the realists (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/).

I really don't think this is a ruse just to get support from the R hawks and neo-Trots, as I've seen so many people say. But even if that's true, that kind of thing doesn't sit well with me either.

"It's always possible to stick to your principles, if you have any."
--Isabel Paterson

That's one of the reasons I love Ron. You never have to wonder if he's saying things for political expediency or to garner support from different factions. He says what he believes-based on principles-always. And how much easier it must be to do that!

[erowe1]

doesn't "outing" usually refer to exposing a gay person?

What Rand said in that Time article is really gay.

[acptulsa]

That's one of the reasons I love Ron. You never have to wonder if he's saying things for political expediency or to garner support from different factions. He said what he believed, based on principles, always. And how much easier it must be to do that!

Much easier. Ron would never address Putin's premature ejaculations without addressing whether the EU is getting ahead of itself as well.

But, you know, it's also easier never to be president, and leave it to the crooks to do it instead...

[kathy88]

Well someone has apparently done the math and determined the neocon votes far outnumber the Liberty votes...

[ZENemy]

Agreed 100%. We won't get a candidate elected with Ron Paul's non-interventionist rhetoric.

So its ok for Rand to lie, switch positions? Since "we wont get a candidate elected" we should support liars? We should support liars like Obama?

ANYTHING to get elected right?

"No guys, ONCE I get in there, Ill do the things you want...ONCE I get in, but to get in, we MUST do some wrong"

"he is just saying that now, we gotta LIE and change positions to get him in there and THEN we will have freedom."

Damn Ive heard this all before.

BLAH BLAH SAVE IT RAND!

(Directed to Rand and Politics, not you Angel)

[angelatc]

I know I'm disappointed. Is that what a foreign policy "realist" would say? I don't know. I'll have to check with the realists (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/).

I really don't think this is a ruse just to get support from the R hawks and neo-Trots, as I've seen so many people say. But even if that's true, that kind of thing doesn't sit well with me either.

"It's always possible to stick to your principles, if you have any."
--Isabel Paterson

That's one of the reasons I love Ron. You never have to wonder if he's saying things for political expediency or to garner support from different factions. He says what he believes-based on principles-always. And how much easier it must be to do that!

We voted for Bush because he talked the non-intervention talk, and he turned around once in office and did exactly the opposite. I'm going to give Rand the benefit of the doubt, because he is really the only chance there is.

He isn't calling for military action - everything else is just noise.

[FSP-Rebel]

All I know is that dovetailing (talking like a pussy) on a big adversary will make him toast instantly in this GOP primary especially when he's one of the shorter peeps on stage. I'm seeing it as him balancing his position in his own words rather than letting the hawk pieces do it for him on their own terms as we saw last week numerous times.

[angelatc]

So its ok for Rand to lie, switch positions?

ANYTHING to get elected right?

"No guys, ONCE I get in there, Ill do the things you want...ONCE I get in, but to get in, we MUST do some wrong"

"he is just saying that now, we gotta LIE and change positions to get him in there and THEN we will have freedom."

Damn Ive heard this all before.


BLAH BLAH SAVE IT RAND!

You're getting a politician. Clearly you're not ready to face reality yet, which is that Ron Paul's foreign policy doesn't win elections.

[ZENemy]

You're getting a Liar. Clearly you're into honest people, which is not a politicians Strong point, foreign policy doesn't win elections. So we really gotta invade other countries to be free here at home



:D

[Cap]

Rhetoric that panders/supports the war mongers will cost lives. Rand's rhetoric could very well tip public opinion toward war.

[ClydeCoulter]

The way I see it, is that Rand has to act presidential in order to convince many that he can do it.

Now, what is that?

Ron has worked to get the message out about the "Golden Rule" and Liberty, and it seems that NOW is the time for it to spread. Look at the "peoples" choice for Syria, No War!

Now, is the time for Rand to find a way to deliver the message of Liberty with a firm hand and in a face saving way. Remember him talking about face saving diplomacy not so long ago? He needs to deliver a "face saving" way for America to become peaceful and non-hypocritical.

[Barrex]

HA HA HA. This again.

"We should have bases in Europe but Europeans should pay for it"- Rand Paul
Translated: It is not gonna happen.

HA HA HA

This urge to attack, spit on libertarian instead of real enemies of freedom like L. Graham is retarded. Oh you are doing something good? let me spit in your face destroy everything you are trying to do... you know I am doing it for your own good. That kind of people disgust me.

[ZENemy]

“It is America’s duty to condemn these actions in no uncertain terms. It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression."


Gross

[fisharmor]

Well, let's just say that as someone who lives about 20 miles from the location where about a quarter of their ICBMs are headed,
and as someone who knows that, thanks to non-proliferation treaties, they're all 1960's tech missiles that have an accuracy rated in miles,
and as someone who knows what a MIRV is,
I can't say this really improves my opinion of Rand Paul.

Hey apologists, do me a favor and just pick the letter of your pre-programmed illogical response.

A) If you don't like it, you can just move!
B) This is all just a ruse. He's a sleeper agent who is going to steer the 1/4 mile deep crater that used to be Washington into a new era of liberty.
C) Fuck you fisharmor, you're a hater anyway so we're not losing a vote if you get incinerated.

[Natural Citizen]

I think that what Senator Paul needs to understand better is that Russia has been mishandled for quite some time. If he doesn't want to have a pow wow with papa Paul about the relevant history then maybe use the www like the rest of us to recall our memories. He's clearly running with the model that is being propped up by msm and some politicians who seek to impose the TPP for the benefit of their corporate masters against the sovereignty of these countries. I really don't truly think that Paul has a firm grasp on the issue at all. But if he does...and he may...then that's a problem in itself because it reveals some things that probably wouldn't have been otherwise. Of course, it's not just him. There are many in political office who stand to have transparency ...oh...dare I say forced upon them?

How the West lost Putin: It didn’t have to be this way (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/how-the-west-lost-putin-it-didnt-have-to-be-this-way/article17384414/?page=1)

And what is really happening here is the same thing that has happened with many other countries who have fallen prey to the looting of their countries by western money men and special interests. The same players who stand to benefit from the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement...including the media who also stand to benefit greatly from the TPP. This is why we see the extent of the malfeasance from them that we do regarding any accurate reporting on the issue in scope. Except this time they picked the wrong kid to try to steal milk money from.

There will be no true sanctions against Russia because most of the free thinking world understands clearly, like has happened with many other countries, their elected governments and their resources being pillaged, what is happening here.

You know, to understand Putin's history in his own country, one should consider that what really must peeve plutocrats and oligarchs who narrate the context of western media and some of narrative from many of our politicians is that Putin was able to end the rape of Russia by its own oligarchs from within his own ranks. Which is entirely another aspect of this but maybe best saved for another day.



I had posted this around here some place. Perhaps in the "Media Malfeasance" thread. I don't remember.

Anyhoo....

Distorting Russia How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine (http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia#)


“The history of this degradation is also clear. It began in the early 1990s, following the end of the Soviet Union, when the US media adopted Washington’s narrative that almost everything President Boris Yeltsin did was a “transition from communism to democracy” and thus in America’s best interests. This included his economic “shock therapy” and oligarchic looting of essential state assets, which destroyed tens of millions of Russian lives; armed destruction of a popularly elected Parliament and imposition of a “presidential” Constitution, which dealt a crippling blow to democratization and now empowers Putin; brutal war in tiny Chechnya, which gave rise to terrorists in Russia’s North Caucasus; rigging of his own re-election in 1996; and leaving behind, in 1999, his approval ratings in single digits, a disintegrating country laden with weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, most American journalists still give the impression that Yeltsin was an ideal Russian leader.

“Since the early 2000s, the media have followed a different leader-centric narrative, also consistent with US policy, that devalues multifaceted analysis for a relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for facts. (Was any Soviet Communist leader after Stalin ever so personally villainized?) If Russia under Yeltsin was presented as having legitimate politics and national interests, we are now made to believe that Putin’s Russia has none at all, at home or abroad—even on its own borders, as in Ukraine.

“Russia today has serious problems and many repugnant Kremlin policies. But anyone relying on mainstream American media will not find there any of their origins or influences in Yeltsin’s Russia or in provocative US policies since the 1990s—only in the “autocrat” Putin who, however authoritarian, in reality lacks such power. Nor is he credited with stabilizing a disintegrating nuclear-armed country, assisting US security pursuits from Afghanistan (http://www.thenation.com/afghanistan?lc=int_mb_1001) and Syria to Iran or even with granting amnesty, in December, to more than 1,000 jailed prisoners, including mothers of young children.”

[Anti Federalist]

All I know is that dovetailing (talking like a pussy) on a big adversary will make him toast instantly in this GOP primary especially when he's one of the shorter peeps on stage. I'm seeing it as him balancing his position in his own words rather than letting the hawk pieces do it for him on their own terms as we saw last week numerous times.

And that is one of the most truthful, and therefore saddest, statements on this I've seen yet.

Let's just elect President Camacho and be done with it...

[Hyperion]

I wish he would apply his father's foreign policy. Non-interventionism has never been more en vogue in recent history.

[jtstellar]

let me get this straight

so you guys are actually arguing over personalities and "images" over what the words actually mean, what actions would be entailed from this, military invasion? blockade? sanctions? or just nothing? /facepalm i find people whining more when seasons change and body is irritated from seasonal fatigues, like i said, people really aren't too much different from animals. this is hopeless. at least the larger america is growing smarter while this place shrinks.

[vita3]

It's time to expose (STOP) the Neo-Cons driving the out of control Foreign Policy bus off the cliff... not cower to them

Come on Rand'

[Gaddafi Duck]

None of this is news.

One can hope he is a libertarian Trojan horse. Disguised to be more politically palatable to the masses, only to rip out the statism by the roots.

Regardless, it's hopeless to change the system. Even if Rand was navigating the electability waters prudent enough to become president, little good could come of it. It's the Ring of Power, and only Sauron, evil, is the master. All those good intentioned fall into darkness...you cannot use force to make good, and that is what Rand would have to do.

[TaftFan]

He should hire me as an adviser. (half joking) His advisers from the start crafted a position that had to be changed multiple times and eventually into something I doubt he agrees with.

This is what I would have had him do:

He should have taken a pro-democracy position from the start, allowing Crimea and the rest of Ukraine to decide their own fate, while condemning Russian intervention. The punishment for Russia should be simply framed as developing our own energy resources, while declining to place sanctions on Russia (for obvious reasons).

[cajuncocoa]

Agreed 100%. We won't get a candidate elected with Ron Paul's non-interventionist rhetoric.
If they can't express Ron Paul's non-interventionist rhetoric, what's left for which to call them "our candidate"?

[devil21]

What Time article? The one from a week ago that's already been hashed, rehashed and then hashed some more? And who the hell is Eric Peters and why should I give a shit what he thinks? He doesn't even link to the Time article. A cursory review shows he bashes Rand whenever he gets the chance.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?446027-Rand-Paul-Op-Ed-U-S-Must-Take-Strong-Action-Against-Putin%92s-Aggression

Enough with damn knee jerk reactions over MSM edited articles about Rand. Gah!

[cajuncocoa]

We voted for Bush because he talked the non-intervention talk, and he turned around once in office and did exactly the opposite. I'm going to give Rand the benefit of the doubt, because he is really the only chance there is.

He isn't calling for military action - everything else is just noise."We" who? I didn't vote for him.

[Anti Federalist]

let me get this straight

so you guys are actually arguing over personalities and "images" over what the words actually mean, what actions would be entailed from this, military invasion? blockade? sanctions? or just nothing? /facepalm i find people whining more when seasons change and body is irritated from seasonal fatigues, like i said, people really aren't too much different from animals. this is hopeless. at least the larger america is growing smarter while this place shrinks.

Aside from being wrong, (this was from just a few months ago, after being remaining the same since Jan. 2008 - Most users ever online was 4,645, 12-05-2013 at 12:57 AM) what's your problem here?

Rand said:


“Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation . . .Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community.”

That could have come right out of the mouth of Karl Rove or Bill Kristol.

I find that to be a problem.

[cajuncocoa]

:DYou must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ZENemy again.

[heavenlyboy34]

You're getting a politician. Clearly you're not ready to face reality yet, which is that Ron Paul's foreign policy doesn't win elections.
Yup. That speaks volumes about The Electorate and The System, doesn't it?

[pcosmar]

Anti-Federalist, Rand can't run for president if he takes the side of Putin.

Why?

[cajuncocoa]

Well, let's just say that as someone who lives about 20 miles from the location where about a quarter of their ICBMs are headed,
and as someone who knows that, thanks to non-proliferation treaties, they're all 1960's tech missiles that have an accuracy rated in miles,
and as someone who knows what a MIRV is,
I can't say this really improves my opinion of Rand Paul.

Hey apologists, do me a favor and just pick the letter of your pre-programmed illogical response.

A) If you don't like it, you can just move!
B) This is all just a ruse. He's a sleeper agent who is going to steer the 1/4 mile deep crater that used to be Washington into a new era of liberty.
C) Fuck you fisharmor, you're a hater anyway so we're not losing a vote if you get incinerated.
I think the correct answer is "C" since you didn't provide a choice for "all of the above"

[TomtheTinker]

Anti-Federalist, Rand can't run for president if he takes the side of Putin.


TRUTH
R
U
T
H

[jtstellar]

i get it..

the "images" that exist inside your mind is more important than anything else. well i'm sorry rand doesn't present enough of a "pacifist image". it's true that tones are important and it can better the world, and that's why we need spiritual leaders. but i never saw rand as -the- spiritual leader, i see him as someone who has other very essential work to do, and i don't see why others can't.

people already see ron as -the- anti interventionist, in some cases some even see him as anti american, that's why you need someone to frame the other side of the debate so you have a di-pole situation, north and south, to frame the debate. rand is pushing up the "lower" limits of this debate, how can you ever say a single-pole approach to this task is workable? it's unfathomable what you are proposing.

[Anti Federalist]

Why?

That's my question as well.

Political suits constantly want us to refer to them as "leaders"...well, lead, then, God damn it.

Find a way out of this mess that you've created.

[cajuncocoa]

i get it..

the "images" that exist inside your mind is more important than anything else. well i'm sorry rand doesn't present enough of a "pacifist image". it's true that tones are important and it can better the world, and that's why we need spiritual leaders. but i never saw rand as -the- spiritual leader, i see him as someone who has other very essential work to do, and i don't see why others can't.I thought part of that "essential work" was to continue to preach sound foreign policy of the Ron Paul brand while putting the rhetoric into action. It's the primary issue that sets us apart from every other GOP candidate IMO.

[Natural Citizen]

You're getting a politician. Clearly you're not ready to face reality yet, which is that Ron Paul's foreign policy doesn't win elections.

Ron paul said...and I quote..."It's not like I'm just trying to win and get elected. I'm trying to change the course of history."


It's at the end of this video. He's very clear. Now, I know that you don't like to watch videos but do consider it a multi-purpose vid. Because it's not like everyone went back to sleep when just trying to hurry up and get elected became the important thing todo again once the statesman retired. Oh, no. Hardly. You'll find (in time) that there are far, far more people who remain content to strive to change the course of history than those who would strive to just hurry up and get elected while nothing relevant changes and they profit and gain power by going along with the same as it ever was.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muf23Rc7HV8

[angelatc]

That's my question as well.

Political suits constantly want us to refer to them as "leaders"...well, lead, then, God damn it.

Find a way out of this mess that you've created.

You think Rand Paul created this mess?

[ClydeCoulter]

So much for the "remnant"

[Anti Federalist]

You think Rand Paul created this mess?

A generalization:

"Political suits".

This is my point:

The political class demands that we call them "leaders".

The political class has stirred this pot creating the chain of events now unfolding.

The political class then retreats into beard mumbling or sabre rattling useless rhetoric when the whole stinking mess blows up in their faces and offers nothing new or old or innovative to come up with a decent solution.

That being the very definition of "leadership".

Therefore, the political class does not get to wear the "leader" title.

[pcosmar]

Anti-Federalist, Rand can't run for president if he takes the side of Putin.

But he can take the side of the Neo-Nazis that overthrew the elected government and be accepted.

just how is it that this rogue government that took over after a violent Coup is more legitimate than the Election and elected officials of Crimea?

[angelatc]

Ron paul said...and I quote..."It's not like I'm just trying to win and get elected. I'm trying to change the course of history."


It's at the end of this video. He's very clear. Now, I know that you don't like to watch videos but do consider it a multi-purpose vid. Because it's not like everyone went back to sleep when just trying to hurry up and get elected became the important thing todo again once the statesman retired. Oh, no. Hardly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muf23Rc7HV8

Yeah, I'm not going to enroll in Youtube University.

Ron Paul isn't running for office, Rand Paul is. Part of changing history involves actually getting elected, but I'm certainly not shocked to see you here bashing Rand Paul.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You're getting a politician. Clearly you're not ready to face reality yet, which is that Ron Paul's foreign policy doesn't win elections.

No, it was Ron Paul's presentation of non-intervention that supposedly didn't win elections (from what Rand defenders were saying early on). If Rand is such a great public speaker, then he should do what Ron couldn't do and persuade his audience, not alter the message just to save face.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I hope Rand is just playing the game, I doubt he can fool the elites.

[ClydeCoulter]

Yeah, I'm not going to enroll in Youtube University.

Ron Paul isn't running for office, Rand Paul is. Part of changing history involves actually getting elected, but I'm certainly not shocked to see you here bashing Rand Paul.


Really?

[pcosmar]

You think Rand Paul created this mess?

No,, but he does open his mouth and stuff his foot in it.. or he really does believe the stupid things he says.

He may be fine for Kentucky.. but I have no reason to "support" him.

And I had hope that he would be someone I could support.

[ZENemy]

I hope Rand is just playing the game, I doubt he can fool the elites.

If he is, what will stop him from "playing" once elected?

[angelatc]

A generalization:

"Political suits".

What do you want him to do AF? If you have not learned by now that facts do absolutely nothing to change people's minds then I don't know what to tell you.

We saw what happened to Ron Paul when he advocated the policy we agree with. Is that really what we want again?

Because what we really want - public opinion to sway in our direction - isn't going to happen between now and 2016.

And I'm not saying he's a shoe-in once he gets elected, but as far as I can tel, right now he's our only chance. It might require a leap of faith for some of us. But that's better than shuffling slowly off the cliff mumbling about how things ought to be.

[Cleaner44]

Because I don't trust MSM sources such as Time, I would like to know if Rand stands by these comments being attributed to him.

[ZENemy]

Yeah, I'm not going to enroll in Youtube University.

Ron Paul isn't running for office, Rand Paul is. Part of changing history involves actually getting elected, but I'm certainly not shocked to see you here bashing Rand Paul.


Please point out someone getting elected on lies/deception (I know some people call this politics but I call it like I see it) and then providing the truth for freedom after being elected. Did JFK act like a War Monger and then bust out all kinds of liberty that ended in him getting shot? I'm not being nasty, I'm asking a serious question.

[phill4paul]

If he is, what will stop him from playing once elected?

Well, he will have to play for the first four years so that he can get elected for another four. Because, you know, winning elections mean everything. His second presidency is when we will be able to see some real changes!

[cajuncocoa]

If he is, what will stop him from playing once elected?
He won"t stop. The day after the 2016 election begins the quest for re-election in 2020.

[angelatc]

No, it was Ron Paul's presentation of non-intervention that supposedly didn't win elections (from what Rand defenders were saying early on). If Rand is such a great public speaker, then he should do what Ron couldn't do and persuade his audience, not alter the message just to save face.

Some of us are ready to move past the education portion of the process.


Once people have made up their mind about something, they very seldom change it. Once people have made up their mind about a candidate, they very seldom change it. If Rand Paul loses the base at this juncture, then Cruz catapults into the lead.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

All I know is that dovetailing (talking like a pussy) on a big adversary will make him toast instantly in this GOP primary especially when he's one of the shorter peeps on stage. I'm seeing it as him balancing his position in his own words rather than letting the hawk pieces do it for him on their own terms as we saw last week numerous times.

No a real pussy is someone like Obama who talks tough but then doesn't want to do anything to back his rhetoric up. A real pussy is someone like Cruz who claims to advocate for fiscal responsibility and limited government but then calls for war when Israel isn't pleased.

You know who isn't a pussy? Someone who isn't afraid to stand their ground, argue their position, even when their critics continue to spew jingoist propaganda, and find a way to convince the masses about why their position is correct.

In this case, Rand is more of a pussy than his father.

[Natural Citizen]

Yeah, I'm not going to enroll in Youtube University.

Ron Paul isn't running for office, Rand Paul is. Part of changing history involves actually getting elected, but I'm certainly not shocked to see you here bashing Rand Paul.

I've been relatively soft on Rand Paul. If I ever bashed Rand Paul, you'd know it.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Some of us are ready to move past the education portion of the process.


Once people have made up their mind about something, they very seldom change it. Once people have made up their mind about a candidate, they very seldom change it. If Rand Paul loses the base at this juncture, then Cruz catapults into the lead.

You're not going to have successful change unless the voting population is educated. And if you're so worried about Cruz (and rightfully so), Rand needs to beat him, not join him.

[ZENemy]

He won"t stop. The day after the 2016 election begins the quest for re-election in 2020.

lol

Im out of reps!

[ZENemy]

This is exactly how we get co-opted, blur the lines between the new radicals and the old guard.

[Matt Collins]

And that is one of the most truthful, and therefore saddest, statements on this I've seen yet.

Let's just elect President Camacho and be done with it...
You can't change the weather on the battlefield. You have to roll with it and use it to your advantage.

[angelatc]

Well, he will have to play for the first four years so that he can get elected for another four. Because, you know, winning elections mean everything. His second presidency is when we will be able to see some real changes!

It is incredibly hard to oust an incumbent. Look at Barack Obama if you doubt that. His signature legislation was already very unpopular, the economy was still in the doldrums, and yet he got 4 more years.

I believe that If Rand Paul had 4 years to work on the economic reforms we need, the country would be in such good shape that the second win would be as big as Reagan's second term.

[cajuncocoa]

You know who isn't a pussy? Someone who isn't afraid to stand their ground, argue their position, even when their critics continue to spew jingoist propaganda, and find a way to convince the masses about why their position is correct.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/alone.jpg

[cajuncocoa]

This is exactly how we get co-opted, blur the lines between the new radicals and the old guard.
I saw it coming as soon as it was over for Ron in 2012.

[angelatc]

Well, let's just say that as someone who lives about 20 miles from the location where about a quarter of their ICBMs are headed,
and as someone who knows that, thanks to non-proliferation treaties, they're all 1960's tech missiles that have an accuracy rated in miles,
and as someone who knows what a MIRV is,
I can't say this really improves my opinion of Rand Paul.

Hey apologists, do me a favor and just pick the letter of your pre-programmed illogical response.

A) If you don't like it, you can just move!
B) This is all just a ruse. He's a sleeper agent who is going to steer the 1/4 mile deep crater that used to be Washington into a new era of liberty.
C) Fuck you fisharmor, you're a hater anyway so we're not losing a vote if you get incinerated.


I can't help but notice you don't have a better plan.....

[Matt Collins]

You're not going to have successful change unless the voting population is educated. Untrue...

here is why:

http://www.facltraining.org/facl2/info.htm

[VBRonPaulFan]

Isn't Rand's position here basically the libertarian position?

There are ways to sanction a nation without violating the NAP. Like simply refusing to do business with or trade with countries you don't agree with. The freezing of assets, high tariffs/import taxes, etc are the more aggressive form of sanctions that would violate NAP. The impression I got from the article Rand wrote initially was him saying that since we disagree with what Russia is doing, the best way to handle them would be simply to stop doing business with them and let them feel the pain of our absence. I didn't get the impression that he was calling for aggressive sanctions necessarily.

Unless i'm completely missing something with what he said?

[Matt Collins]

No a real pussy is someone like Obama who talks tough but then doesn't want to do anything to back his rhetoric up. A real pussy is someone like Cruz who claims to advocate for fiscal responsibility and limited government but then calls for war when Israel isn't pleased.

You know who isn't a pussy? Someone who isn't afraid to stand their ground, argue their position, even when their critics continue to spew jingoist propaganda, and find a way to convince the masses about why their position is correct.

In this case, Rand is more of a pussy than his father.
Besides being crude and rude, you are also positioning brute over brains.

[pcosmar]

that the second win would be as big as Reagan's second term.

???

that was a win?

[cajuncocoa]

Some of us are ready to move past the education portion of the process.

That's where the real work and the real change will take place. But sure, cut and run while we're just getting started....take the easy way out.

[Matt Collins]

Rhetoric that panders/supports the war mongers will cost lives. Rand's rhetoric could very well tip public opinion toward war.No, not at all. Rand is simply attempting to neutralize the neocons. He isn't pushing for a war, and Rand would not support a war.

[angelatc]

You're not going to have successful change unless the voting population is educated. And if you're so worried about Cruz (and rightfully so), Rand needs to beat him, not join him.

The only win that counts is the win in the election. The electorate is NEVER educated - that's a delusion you need to abandon ASAP if you want to understand electoral politics.

[Matt Collins]

words words wordsI judge him by his actions (read: votes) - still very satisfied thus far.Bingo!It doesn't matter what a politician says, only what they do.

[Matt Collins]

I love it, you have all the Neo-Cons saying he is too soft and an 'isolationist,' and then people on here stating he is being too much of a neo-con.Because Rand is a brilliant rhetorician. He is able to speak in a way that makes people hear what they want to hear.

[cajuncocoa]

???

that was a win?
Gotta understand....Reagan is the mascot for Team Red. Some here are just cheerleaders for the team.

[angelatc]

???

that was a win?

Maybe you missed it, but Reagan won his second term in a landslide.

[Anti Federalist]

Because what we really want - public opinion to sway in our direction - isn't going to happen between now and 2016.

But see, outside of the interventionist dead enders, it is.

There is a wave of non interventionism sweeping across the country.

I don't know how deep or how wide it is, but if you want to be called a "leader", when the winds of change align in your favor, you seize them and "boldly go where no man has gone before".

Not sink back into repeating the tired platitudes and bromides that caused the mess in the first place.

[pcosmar]

Unless i'm completely missing something with what he said?

Apparently so.

Why should Russia be punished at all?
And what makes it any of the US's business??.

[ZENemy]

Bingo!It doesn't matter what a politician says, only what they do.

Like Endorsing Romney over his own father?

[cajuncocoa]

I can't help but notice you don't have a better plan.....
Wrong. The better plan is to call even "our" candidates out when they stumble. But the groupies here don't have the stomach for it.

[r3volution 3.0]

I thought part of that "essential work" was to continue to preach sound foreign policy of the Ron Paul brand while putting the rhetoric into action. It's the primary issue that sets us apart from every other GOP candidate IMO.

No, rather it's "preach sound foreign policy of the Ron Paul brand OR [put] the rhetoric into action"

Someone who preaches pure non-interventionism will never be in a position to enact it.

Rand is preaching a message as non-interventionist as possible without compromising his ability to get elected (and then actually shift policy toward non-interventionism).

[Natural Citizen]

You can't change the weather on the battlefield.

Well. That's not exactly true anymore, you know. But I see what you were trying to say though.

Speaking of which. You know that agribusiness, like it has been successful in doing where other coups have taken place recently, was moving in on Ukraine too before the shtf. True story. But we haven't got to that part yet. That'll be a hoot. It's "foreign policy" too, you know. Stay tuned. Foreign Policy isn't always just what the media and some politicians would like to narrate it to be and where it's comfortable for them where just getting elected is the bees knees. Nope. Uh-uh. BRISCA nations (India and the like) will soon jump on the human rights violations bandwagon that we are seeing from China (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-02-28/china-strikes-back-us-human-rights-violations-slams-prism-spying-droning-gun-violenc)as they, themselves, run abreast with the propaganda machine that we see from RT and the like toward western oligarchs and plutocrats who are at the heart of this turmoil. Yep. These BRISCA nations will become major players in the non-gmo industry which will absolutely be competitive with western agribusiness who, through trade agreements like the tpp which opens the door for American corporations to invade the sovereinty of these nations, comfortably and without legal recourse, inserts itself repeatedly and consistently in the many recent coups we've seen and that drives this and other recent phenomenon across the globe. It's going to get jiggy alright.

[angelatc]

Isn't Rand's position here basically the libertarian position?

There are ways to sanction a nation without violating the NAP. Like simply refusing to do business with or trade with countries you don't agree with. The freezing of assets, high tariffs/import taxes, etc are the more aggressive form of sanctions that would violate NAP. The impression I got from the article Rand wrote initially was him saying that since we disagree with what Russia is doing, the best way to handle them would be simply to stop doing business with them and let them feel the pain of our absence. I didn't get the impression that he was calling for aggressive sanctions necessarily.

Unless i'm completely missing something with what he said?

This ant-Rand stuff will only get worse as we get closer to the election. It was really bad when Ron ran - this will be 10x's worse. Bryan shoud do us a favor and open up another forum that is entirely unlinked from this one, and run it like the other candidates run theirs, meaning that non-supporters get banned.

This kind of crap just gives the opposition talking points.

[VBRonPaulFan]

Apparently so.

Why should Russia be punished at all?
And what makes it any of the US's business??.

You could turn that around on an individual basis and say "why should we stand up for others when their liberty is attacked? what makes it any of OUR business?"

It's perfectly fine to let people know you don't agree with what they're doing in a non-violent way, when you really want to let them know. That was basically the gist of what I got from Rand's article.

[pcosmar]

Maybe you missed it, but Reagan won his second term in a landslide.

And you think that was a good thing?

Huge Debt
FEMA Camps
War on Drugs
Expanded Police State
Iran Contra

and those just off the top of my head,,, from memory.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Besides being crude and rude, you are also positioning brute over brains.

I'm not the one who claimed peace was a message for "pussies". And really, brute? How is my argument "brute" when I'm not the one who supports this "America is the greatest nation on earth and Russia needs to back off if it knows what's good for them" crap?

[cajuncocoa]

No, rather it's "preach sound foreign policy of the Ron Paul brand OR [put] the rhetoric into action"

Someone who preaches pure non-interventionism will never be in a position to enact it.

Rand is preaching a message as non-interventionist as possible without compromising his ability to get elected (and then actually shift policy toward non-interventionism).
So you're counting on him to be a liar. Nice.

[angelatc]

No, rather it's "preach sound foreign policy of the Ron Paul brand OR [put] the rhetoric into action"

Someone who preaches pure non-interventionism will never be in a position to enact it.

Rand is preaching a message as non-interventionist as possible without compromising his ability to get elected (and then actually shift policy toward non-interventionism).

She has been a Rand-hater for years now. Nothing will change her mind.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Double Post

[cajuncocoa]

This ant-Rand stuff will only get worse as we get closer to the election. It was really bad when Ron ran - this will be 10x's worse. Bryan shoud do us a favor and open up another forum that is entirely unlinked from this one, and run it like the other candidates run theirs, meaning that non-supporters get banned.

This kind of crap just gives the opposition talking points.Why wait for Bryan to do it? Start your own Team Red board (no liberals allowed!!)

[phill4paul]

This ant-Rand stuff will only get worse as we get closer to the election. It was really bad when Ron ran - this will be 10x's worse. Bryan shoud do us a favor and open up another forum that is entirely unlinked from this one, and run it like the other candidates run theirs, meaning that non-supporters get banned.

This kind of crap just gives the opposition talking points.

You're the one that flaunts the "Love it or leave it," rhetoric. What's stopping you? Or would you rather just incessantly bitch?

[pcosmar]

This kind of crap just gives the opposition talking points.

And this crap is going to push me to find Democrats that are worth supporting.

I will be seriously looking to third party choices.

[Anti Federalist]

No, not at all. Rand is simply attempting to neutralize the neocons. He isn't pushing for a war, and Rand would not support a war.


Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation

Punished, how?

And why is it the United State's role to "isolate" Russia.

(Ridiculous and impossible on the face of it, unless you are willing to put half of Europe in the dark, using military force. Then the shit would hit the fan, which is the OP's point)

[cajuncocoa]

She has been a Rand-hater for years now. Nothing will change her mind.
LOL @ "Rand-hater". The groupies take it very personally when you criticize their crush.

[angelatc]

And you think that was a good thing?

Huge Debt
FEMA Camps
War on Drugs
Expanded Police State
Iran Contra

and those just off the top of my head,,, from memory.

Whatever..... Way to take a point waaaay off topic. I said that Reagan won the election in a landslide because the economy was strong.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

The only win that counts is the win in the election. The electorate is NEVER educated - that's a delusion you need to abandon ASAP if you want to understand electoral politics.

And meaningful change is not going to happen when the voters are convinced that war is ok, especially in this economy. The fact that you think this Machiavellian strategy is going to actually accomplish something legitimate (Rand getting elected but not acting libertarian in order to save face doesn't count) is laughable.

[cajuncocoa]

Whatever..... Way to take a point waaaay off topic. I said that Reagan won the election in a landslide because the economy was strong.
But it wasn't really strong. It was smoke and mirrors. Maybe you missed the part about "Huge Debt"

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Whatever..... Way to take a point waaaay off topic. I said that Reagan won the election in a landslide because the economy was strong.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Strong? Please. That's like saying the Bush years from 2002 to 2007 were strong.

If there was any economic turnaround during Reagan's tenure, it was because of Paul Volcker, an appointee of Jimmy Carter.

[Petar]

The really sad thing is that all of you naysayers are effectively carrying Peter King's water...

[klamath]

And this crap is going to push me to find Democrats that are worth supporting.

I will be seriously looking to third party choices.Putin's your man.

[angelatc]

You're the one that flaunts the "Love it or leave it," rhetoric. What's stopping you? Or would you rather just incessantly bitch?

Well, the fact that the forums are supposed to be a place where political activists gather is part of it. The fact that AFAIK this is the only Rand Paul forum out there is another.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

For political purposes, sure as hell beats this:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?447007-Yahoo!-News-Paul-Blesses-Putin-s-Sham-Election
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?447000-Kirchick-quot-Ron-Paul-Is-Supporting-Russia%92s-Illegal-Occupation-of-Crimea-quot

There is a reason why, as CNN put it, Rand Paul has gone where Ron Paul never did (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?446922-Rand-Paul-tops-CNN-poll-at-16-Ryan-15-Perry-11-Huckabee-10).

[pcosmar]

Whatever..... Way to take a point waaaay off topic. I said that Reagan won the election in a landslide because the economy was strong.
Bullshit.

He won because he was the incumbant and the "D's" failed to run a decent campaign.

His second term he was a nearly mindless prop. Very literally an empty suit.

That was George Bushes win.

people voted for a Hollywood image. ( with Alzheimer's)

[Petar]

So which one of you liberty hipsters is gonna step up and show Rand how it's done?

[Petar]

I think that I would like to nominate cajuncocoa to step up and run the most simultaneously effective and ideologically pure political campaign of the millennium.

[compromise]

So which one of you liberty hipsters is gonna step up and show Rand how it's done?

Most of them are felons and so are legally unable to.

[phill4paul]

I think that I would like to nominate cajuncocoa to step up and run the most simultaneously effective and ideologically pure political campaign of the millennium.

Put your money where your mouth is, write a $3500 dollar check to her and I'll help her file the necessary paperwork.

[cajuncocoa]

I think that I would like to nominate cajuncocoa to step up and run the most simultaneously effective and ideologically pure political campaign of the millennium.
I'm not electable.

[angelatc]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Strong? Please. That's like saying the Bush years from 2002 to 2007 were strong.

If there was any economic turnaround during Reagan's tenure, it was because of Paul Volcker, an appointee of Jimmy Carter.


Like it or not, Reagan won 2 terms, and the second election was won despite being neck deep in scandals because the economy was crazy strong. He did not win because he educated voters. He won because he got the most votes.

[angelatc]

Put your money where your mouth is, write a $3500 dollar check to her and I'll help her file the necessary paperwork.

That would be technically illegal.

[asurfaholic]

Wrong. The better plan is to call even "our" candidates out when they stumble. But the groupies here don't have the stomach for it.

To me, I'm not going to challenge this because I don't understand. I just don't understand the reasoning of saying what he said. But past that I trust Rand and I am going to stand with him even though I apparently am not operating at his level of business. I trust he will not carry on the current status quo of boom kill and steal .

[ZENemy]

Most of them are felons and so are legally unable to.

That's like a badge of honor among our "representation"

[Anti Federalist]

And this crap is going to push me to find Democrats that are worth supporting.

I will be seriously looking to third party choices.

http://i.imgur.com/1P4GQ7A.jpg

[klamath]

Here's to the Russian neocons. Something the get your hearts stirring. Oh so proudly you can don your uniforms and kill the imperialist Americans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSL8mSraiZ4

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I'm not electable.

But apparently you think Rand Paul should be, that he should say politically poisonous things just so you feel comforted.

[cajuncocoa]

That would be technically illegal.
As if that's the only problem with it. LOL

[ZENemy]

To me, I'm not going to challenge this because I don't understand. I just don't understand the reasoning of saying what he said. But past that I trust Rand and I am going to stand with him even though I apparently am not operating at his level of business. I trust he will not carry on the current status quo of boom kill and steal .

WHY, what has he done to GAIN your trust? What has he done DIFFERENT than any other scumbag up there?

[phill4paul]

That would be technically illegal.

Legal smeagal. I'll get Ron Paul Inc. on board. Jesse and Sorenson can show me how it is done.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Aside from being wrong, (this was from just a few months ago, after being remaining the same since Jan. 2008 - Most users ever online was 4,645, 12-05-2013 at 12:57 AM) what's your problem here?

Rand said:


That could have come right out of the mouth of Karl Rove or Bill Kristol.

I find that to be a problem.

Hannity had Dick Cheney on last week (may have been the week before). He was using the exact same talking points and staked out the same position as Rand.

[Anti Federalist]

Here's to the Russian neocons. Something the get your hearts stirring. Oh so proudly you can don your uniforms and kill the imperialist Americans.

What are you on about, now?

[pcosmar]

Putin's your man.

From my observation,, a far sight better that what I am seeing from US elected Officials.

And on the right side of this issue.. I am not at all in favor of the Neo Nazis.

http://c.crossmap.christianpost.com/images/1/62/16261.jpg

And apparently,, the people of Crimea feel the same.

[angelatc]

Bullshit.

He won because he was the incumbant and the "D's" failed to run a decent campaign.

His second term he was a nearly mindless prop. Very literally an empty suit.

That was George Bushes win.

people voted for a Hollywood image. ( with Alzheimer's)

Thank you for reinforcing my point that the incumbent is very hard to oust. Now if I can just remind you, again, that he won by a landslide. It was not due to a weak D campaign - it was due to the fact that he was incredibly popular.

Maybe not with you, and maybe not with the liberals, but with Americans in general. If Rand Paul can win the first time, he will win the second election in much the same way.

[Anti Federalist]

Hannity had Dick Cheney on last week (may have been the week before). He was using the exact same talking points and staked out the same position as Rand.

I kind of figured as much...//facepalm//

[cajuncocoa]

But apparently you think Rand Paul should be, that he should say politically poisonous things just so you feel comforted.
No, I don't think Rand should be. Rand volunteered to run; he thinks he should be. I don't have faith in the political process for change. I support other methods.

[cajuncocoa]

Legal smeagal. I'll get Ron Paul Inc. on board. Jesse and Sorenson can show me how it is done.
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

[klamath]

What are you on about, now?
Get your heart stirring.

[angelatc]

Legal smeagal. I'll get Ron Paul Inc. on board. Jesse and Sorenson can show me how it is done.

Yeah, you might want a Plan B. I seem to recall Sorenson got caught, and it torpedoed his career.

[phill4paul]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

Shush you. You know nothing. I'm gonna get Teh Collinz on board too. All you need to do is make speeches. We'll take care of the money issues, you just have to trust us.

[Cabal]

For the sake of argument, let's pretend you are all as psychic and all-knowing as you imagine yourselves to be regarding Rand's "true" self, since apparently we can't take his word as a representation of that. If Rand has to lie his way to the WH, how does this qualify as a victory for liberty? Great, he's in the WH, now what? What do you imagine will happen next? He'll suddenly flip script and undergo a transformation that hasn't been seen since Clark Kent walked through a revolving door?

If he wins this way, he will have won by appealing to the established thought, not by appealing to the philosophy of liberty, and thus he will be expected to toe the line. So why isn't that exactly what he'll do? You think if he drastically changes rhetoric they'll support him? That he'll be able to get anything done? He'll be stuck playing political gridlock for however many terms he's able to squeeze out, and in the meantime what will actually change. Probably not much, if anything. Why? Because nothing has actually changed. Winning elections doesn't change thought unless you won the election by changing thought. Ron tried to change thought; and he did, but it wasn't enough--it was just the wind up. Rand's not picking up where Ron left off though. He's not trying to change thought, he's seemingly just trying to win a popularity contest by conforming to established thought. And if he wins by conforming to established thought, he'll continue to be beholden to that established thought.

So, even if you're right about Rand just 'playing the game' and being such a 'masterful strategist' the victory will be entirely hollow, because the people haven't been enlightened, they've just been conned. And after all is said and done, it'll be business as usual, one way or another.

[Anti Federalist]

Now there is so much much fanboi butthurt flying around, the, to me anyway, main questions are not going to be answered.

To wit:

Punish how, specifically?

Isolate how, specifically?

[compromise]

From my observation,, a far sight better that what I am seeing from US elected Officials.

And on the right side of this issue.. I am not at all in favor or the Neo Nazis.

http://c.crossmap.christianpost.com/images/1/62/16261.jpg


I assure you that they agree with you fully on the issue of the Holocaust.

[klamath]

From my observation,, a far sight better that what I am seeing from US elected Officials.

And on the right side of this issue.. I am not at all in favor of the Neo Nazis.

http://c.crossmap.christianpost.com/images/1/62/16261.jpg

And apparently,, the people of Crimea feel the same.Ah maybe your man can send you to petrol his bloody handy work in Chechnya and you can bow and kiss he hand.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Every time I refresh, this thread has another six replies.

Looks like we have a good ol' sh**-storm thread, so I'm going to stop replying and just enjoy it.

http://replygif.net/i/123.gif

[asurfaholic]

WHY, what has he done to GAIN your trust? What has he done DIFFERENT than any other scumbag up there?

Everything. That's all the answer i feel compelled to give you.

[angelatc]

And meaningful change is not going to happen when the voters are convinced that war is ok, especially in this economy. The fact that you think this Machiavellian strategy is going to actually accomplish something legitimate (Rand getting elected but not acting libertarian in order to save face doesn't count) is laughable.

Maybe I missed something, but I'm pretty sure that Rand Paul is not calling for war.

I don't Rand to act Libertarian, because Libertarians do not win elections. I want him to act Republican.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Isn't Rand's position here basically the libertarian position?

There are ways to sanction a nation without violating the NAP. Like simply refusing to do business with or trade with countries you don't agree with. The freezing of assets, high tariffs/import taxes, etc are the more aggressive form of sanctions that would violate NAP. The impression I got from the article Rand wrote initially was him saying that since we disagree with what Russia is doing, the best way to handle them would be simply to stop doing business with them and let them feel the pain of our absence. I didn't get the impression that he was calling for aggressive sanctions necessarily.

Unless i'm completely missing something with what he said?

You're completely missing something, alright.

Let's start from the beginning:

Governments have no right to impede voluntary transactions between individuals. Sanctions impede voluntary transactions between individuals. This is also known as aggression.

[ZENemy]

For the sake of argument, let's pretend you are all as psychic and all-knowing as you imagine yourselves to be regarding Rand's "true" self, since apparently we can't take his word as a representation of that. If Rand has to lie his way to the WH, how does this qualify as a victory for liberty? Great, he's in the WH, now what? What do you imagine will happen next? He'll suddenly flip script and undergo a transformation that hasn't been seen since Clark Kent walked through a revolving door?

If he wins this way, he will have won by appealing to the established thought, not by appealing to the philosophy of liberty, and thus he will be expected to toe the line. So why isn't that exactly what he'll do? You think if he drastically changes rhetoric they'll support him? That he'll be able to get anything done? He'll be stuck playing political gridlock for however many terms he's able to squeeze out, and in the meantime what will actually change. Probably not much, if anything. Why? Because nothing has actually changed. Winning elections doesn't change thought unless you won the election by changing thought. Ron tried to change thought; and he did, but it wasn't enough--it was just the wind up. Rand's not picking up where Ron left off though. He's not trying to change thought, he's seemingly just trying to win a popularity contest by conforming to established thought. And if he wins by conforming to established thought, he'll continue to be beholden to that established thought.

So, even if you're right about Rand just 'playing the game' and being such a 'masterful strategist' the victory will be entirely hollow, because the people haven't been enlightened, they've just been conned. And after all is said and done, it'll be business as usual, one way or another.

No Confidence 2016

[pcosmar]

Most of them are felons and so are legally unable to.

Excuse me.

Are you attempting to be insulting, or are you just ignorant.

You apparently don't realize that felons can run for office.

Getting elected is another question,, but there are lots of non felons that lose elections.

[angelatc]

Now there is so much much fanboi butthurt flying around, the, to me anyway, main questions are not going to be answered.

To wit:

Punish how, specifically?

Isolate how, specifically?

Reagan won a cold war. No reason to think that Rand can't, too.

[Matt Collins]

Who is the author of this no-name website linked to in the OP, and why does anyone care what he says?

[chudrockz]

You're getting a politician. Clearly you're not ready to face reality yet, which is that Ron Paul's foreign policy doesn't win elections.

I get what you're saying, and I'm trying really hard to agree with it.

My problem is this: if Ron Paul's foreign policy (which is his biggest selling point with me) can't win elections, then I say elections are horseshit and I want no part of them.

[cajuncocoa]

Shush you. You know nothing. I'm gonna get Teh Collinz on board too. All you need to do is make speeches. We'll take care of the money issues, you just have to trust us.http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t270/cajuncocoa/Emoticons/aFu_BangingYourHead.gif

[ZENemy]

Reagan won a cold war. No reason to think that Rand can't, too.

LOL, Regan sat in front of a camera and spit lies.

[Matt Collins]

Like Endorsing Romney over his own father?
Rand already endorsed Ron, and Ron was not going to win the nomination at the point Rand endorsed Romney. Nice try though...

[Feeding the Abscess]

I think that I would like to nominate cajuncocoa to step up and run the most simultaneously effective and ideologically pure political campaign of the millennium.

I'm 6'4", in good shape, and I'm in my late 20s, so I'm eligible to run for the House. I'm moderately decent when it comes to public speaking, and I don't have an issue talking with people from differing perspectives. I live in Darrell Issa's district. Set up some funding and I'll throw my hat in the ring.

[devil21]

Wrong. The better plan is to call even "our" candidates out when they stumble. But the groupies here don't have the stomach for it.

The definition of "stumbling" is an entirely subjective and personal view of the situation. Dunno about you folks but I'd kinda like to WIN this time instead of fighting the good fight but ultimately losing and becoming just a historical marker on the highway to authoritarianism. Over the years I've repeatedly heard the assertion that the problem with Libertarians is that they'd rather be right and purist and lose, instead of playing to win, where winning is how one makes a real difference. I think there's some truth to that. I'm not a fan of the harder rhetoric either but it's a political necessity when Rand still has to win the GOP primary. Some of the Israel bootlickers in the media (Weigel, eg) have already declared war on Rand so Rand has to appease them a little and avoid giving unnecessary ammo they can use against him. Rand comes from fine stock. No, he's not Ron but the genetics (VERY important to me but ymmv), upbringing, career endeavors and other things point to him not being a closet neocon or whatever. He's also not Ron in that Ron was in Congress for 24 years and was past the point of caring what was written about him or having realistic goals of being POTUS. Rand is a junior Senator with a real shot at winning. Politically, that's apples and oranges and applying Ron's rhetorical standard to Rand is foolish if you have any desire to win. I have full faith that Rand knows what he is doing and is not selling out. I said years ago that Rand's election will be where purism and pragmatism smash head-on into each other. Feel free to remain purist but understand that purism simply doesn't win and I'd rather not have Jeb Bush v Hillary Clinton in 2016 because of your purism.

[Petar]

Excuse me.

Are you attempting to be insulting, or are you just ignorant.

You apparently don't realize that felons can run for office.

Getting elected is another question,, but there are lots of non felons that lose elections.

So why don't you just go ahead and really show Rand Paul how to properly lose an election in that case?

[pcosmar]

Ah maybe your man can send you to petrol his bloody handy work in Chechnya and you can bow and kiss he hand.

Oh,, I'm sure the victims of the US military are just as bloody..
lots of women and children blown up at weddings and funerals.

I will be glad to see an end of it.


In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

[cajuncocoa]

Maybe I missed something, but I'm pretty sure that Rand Paul is not calling for war.

I don't Rand to act Libertarian, because Libertarians do not win elections. I want him to act Republican.http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t270/cajuncocoa/Emoticons/Flee.gif

[angelatc]

Wrong. The better plan is to call even "our" candidates out when they stumble. But the groupies here don't have the stomach for it.

This is just flat out crazy wrong.

For one, Rand has never been her candidate.

Two, we aren't calling our candidates out when they stumble. This is sticking a foot out in the aisle and tripping him as he is gaining ground.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm 6'4", in good shape, and I'm in my late 20s, so I'm eligible to run for the House. I'm moderately decent when it comes to public speaking, and I don't have an issue talking with people from differing perspectives. I live in Darrell Issa's district. Set up some funding and I'll throw my hat in the ring.
I'd help you finance a run.

[ZENemy]

Rand already endorsed Ron, and Ron was not going to win the nomination at the point Rand endorsed Romney. Nice try though...

Red lipstick for that pig?

LOL, your "analysis" aside, Rand Paul STILL did that.

[cajuncocoa]

This is just flat out crazy wrong.

For one, Rand has never been her candidate.

Two, we aren't calling our candidates out when they stumble. This is sticking a foot out in the aisle and tripping him as he is gaining ground.

Liar.

[pcosmar]

So why don't you just go ahead and really show Rand Paul how to properly lose an election in that case?

He can win or lose on his own..

I am not seeing his election as any win for me.

He certainly does not represent me.

[mad cow]

Aside from being wrong, (this was from just a few months ago, after being remaining the same since Jan. 2008 - Most users ever online was 4,645, 12-05-2013 at 12:57 AM) what's your problem here?

Rand said:


That could have come right out of the mouth of Karl Rove or Bill Kristol.

I find that to be a problem.

Actually,that was some sort of attack or computer glitch.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?434856-Site-running-slow

But I do see RAND PAUL FORUMS growing exponentially as we get closer to the elections as thousands and thousands of Hillary and Christie and such voters join to constantly post and complain what a worthless piece of shit Rand Paul is along with many of the members we already have.

Then we will start growing again,you can count on it.

[cajuncocoa]

So why don't you just go ahead and really show Rand Paul how to properly lose an election in that case?
What good would it do to win if you give up on why we're fighting?

[jtstellar]

I kind of figured as much...//facepalm//

i saw the same interview..

dick cheneny's "same-ness" involved mentioning of the missile defense shield and nothing else, of what rand said the past entire week, including the reiterations that ronald reagan wasn't a trigger happy president in response to ted cruz, failed to mention rand's point that missile defense shield needs to be paid by europe, since it's their own back yard, etc, also didn't mention the point rand mentioned, the most crucial, which was that the US is broke and has to borrow every cent spent in its following actions. none of that, but one half-true statement from mister college abscess fresh from his workout gym, and everyone is up in the air, head over heels, jumping for joy.

[Matt Collins]

Red lipstick for that pig?

LOL, your "analysis" aside, Rand Paul STILL did that.


And Ron Paul has endorsed many more people much worse than Romney over the years... He even says so out of his own mouth:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmJqSLNy8ms


So if you're going to judge Rand about his endorsement of Romney, you'll also have to hold Ron to the same standard, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

[ZENemy]

And Ron Paul has endorsed many more people much worse than Romney over the years... He even says so out of his own mouth:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmJqSLNy8ms


So if you're going to judge Rand about his endorsement of Romney, you'll also have to hold Ron to the same standard, otherwise you're a hypocrite.


lol and that's a good thing?

[angelatc]

I get what you're saying, and I'm trying really hard to agree with it.

My problem is this: if Ron Paul's foreign policy (which is his biggest selling point with me) can't win elections, then I say elections are horseshit and I want no part of them.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is something I agree with too. But we have been here since 2007 trying to educate America, and it isn't working. Right now I'm assuming that Rand is his father's son and is the best chance we have at accomplishing anything remotely resembling a Ron Paul foreign policy. (But in al fairness, I think that sometimes we tend to imagine Paul's foreign policy to be something that it would not have been.)


If you don't vote, well, whatever.

[Matt Collins]

I'm not the one who claimed peace was a message for "pussies". And really, brute? How is my argument "brute" when I'm not the one who supports this "America is the greatest nation on earth and Russia needs to back off if it knows what's good for them" crap?


You originally wrote:

You know who isn't a pussy? Someone who isn't afraid to stand their ground, argue their position, even when their critics continue to spew jingoist propaganda, and find a way to convince the masses about why their position is correct.


That is the brute way to do it. It's not the smart way to do it.

[Matt Collins]

lol and that's a good thing?
No, I don't like either of it. But as Ron Paul says "even I have to compromise sometimes"...

So the reality is, if we are going to be intellectually honest, we have to say that endorsements don't really matter.

[ZENemy]

Ron Paul's foreign policy is something I agree with too. But we have been here since 2007 trying to educate America, and it isn't working. Right now I'm assuming that Rand is his father's son and is the best chance we have at accomplishing anything remotely resembling a Ron Paul foreign policy. (But in al fairness, I think that sometimes we tend to imagine Paul's foreign policy to be something that it would not have been.)


If you don't vote, well, whatever.

Viable solutions are impossible from within the system, because the system is the problem.

[pcosmar]

Reagan won a cold war. No reason to think that Rand can't, too.

No he did not.

The Afghan Hill Folk had more to do with the fall of the USSR than Reagan did.

He just gets the credit. (sympathy for being a mindless old dude)

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Reagan won a cold war. No reason to think that Rand can't, too.

Would you get off Reagan's dick already? Afghanistan won the Cold War by getting the Soviets into a war of attrition for 10 years and draining their resources, just like they did to the U.S.

[ZENemy]

No, I don't like either of it. But as Ron Paul says "even I have to compromise sometimes"...

So the reality is, if we are going to be intellectually honest, we have to say that endorsements don't really matter.

Maybe its only in my circle, but in my circle of friends Rands move sent absolute shock-waves through us. We all turned from die hard Ron Paul Fans to Anarchist overnight. I guess I should thank Rand Paul for REALLY opening my eyes with that fucked up "political" move. That dirty move (to me it was dirty, you can call it whatever you please) caused me to really open my eyes. I don't care how calculated it was, to me, it looked like someone stabbing their dad in the back and I promise you MANY people feel the way I do, and nobody will in anyway see ANY freedom as a result.

JUDGE by what they DO right? Well what he did, in my mind, was SICK. People should understand that in the "real" world out of "politics" that is what the people saw. They didn't see some "calculated move" they saw an arrogant prick endorse another arrogant prick over his own father.

[pcosmar]

So why don't you just go ahead and really show Rand Paul how to properly lose an election in that case?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/07/felon-brian-banks-wins-michigan-state-representative-seat-on-election-day/
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/11/flint_voters_elect_two_convict.html

Posted for educational purposes only.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

This is just flat out crazy wrong. For one, Rand has never been her candidate.

Sure, him and Cruz are just driving around Iowa and New Hampshire, selling encyclopedias door-to-door :rolleyes:

[acptulsa]

This sure is a lot of sound and fury over basically saying nothing but that Russia had no right to move their army into the Ukraine--regardless of whether that Crimean vote was legitimate or not.

I happen to agree with that, myself.

[specsaregood]

Rand said:


“Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation . . .Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community.” That could have come right out of the mouth of Karl Rove or Bill Kristol.


I find that to be a problem.


Sure, taken alone. But how about these quotes from the EXACT same piece:


This does not and should not require military action.

This came right after the part you quoted, does that sound like Kristol? you have a problem with that statement?



I would do everything in my power to aggressively market and export America’s vast natural gas resources to Europe.

Got a problem with that suggestion?



I would immediately remove every obstacle or current ban blocking the export of American oil and gas to Europe, and I would lift restrictions on new oil and gas development in order to ensure a steady energy supply at home and so we can supply Europe with oil if it is interrupted from Ukraine.

Because of so many of our current needless laws and regulations, President Obama has left Europe completely vulnerable because of its dependence on Russian oil and gas.

Disagree with that one, AF?



I would support immediate construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

How about that suggestion? I understand the private property potential implications but in theory seems like a good idea.



We should also suspend American loans and aid to Ukraine because currently these could have the counterproductive effect of rewarding Russia. Ukraine owes so much money to Russia that America would essentially be borrowing from China to give to Russia.

Disagree with that one?



The U.S. should suspend its participation in this summer’s G-8 summit and take the lead in boycotting the event in Sochi.

Fuck a bunch of G-8, suspend, boycott, sure. nothing good would come from it anyways. Disagree with that suggestion, aF?



I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it. The problem with the foreign policies of both Democratic and Republican administrations is that they never give a second thought to how America can afford what they implement.

Sure, let the EU build and pay for their own missile shield. I don't even think we should be deciding that for them. We certainly shouldn't be paying for it. Got a problem with that suggestion AF?



America is a world leader, but we should not be its policeman or ATM.

Yeah, that sure sounds like Kristol and Rove. lol I take it you disagree with that comment by Rand as well?



At the end of the day, I still agree with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen — the greatest threat to America’s security is our national debt.

Wow, Rove and Kristol are sounding better every day if that sounds like them.



Russia, the Middle East or any other troubled part of the world should never make us forget that the U.S. is broke. We weaken our security and defenses when we print money out of thin air or borrow from other countries to allegedly support our own.

That silly Rand, talking about money again when he should be talking about how to start a war or support Nazis.



Like Dwight Eisenhower, I believe the U.S. can actually be stronger by doing less.

Damnit Rand, quoting Eisenhower. Your dad would never do that!



I stand with the people of Ukraine against subjugation and support their efforts to restore freedom. The Ukrainian people must be free to determine the fate and future of their own nation without unwarranted military or political intimidation from Russia.

There he goes intervening like a neocon again.



The U.S., in cooperation with the international community, should respond to Russia’s aggression with action.

The Budapest Memorandum said that Russia wouldn’t violate the integrity of Ukraine, but now it has. There is no realistic military option in this conflict, at least for the U.S. But this does not mean there aren’t options, many of which I’ve outlined here.

The horror, Rand you neo


Now there is so much much fanboi butthurt flying around, the, to me anyway, main questions are not going to be answered.
To wit:
Punish how, specifically?
Isolate how, specifically?

Did you even read the article? I quoted most of it, all of that is from the same place. He specifically lays his suggestions for the how and why.

/fanboi out.

[cajuncocoa]

Maybe its only in my circle, but in my circle of friends Rands move sent absolute shock-waves through us. We all turned from die hard Ron Paul Fans to Anarchist overnight. I guess I should thank Rand Paul for REALLY opening my eyes with that fucked up "political" move. That dirty move (to me it was dirty, you can call it whatever you please) caused me to really open my eyes. I don't care how calculated it was, to me, it looked like someone stabbing their dad in the back and I will in no way see ANY freedom as a result.You're not alone. Every time I think I should give it just one more chance because Rand does a good thing, he always follows up with an equally bad (or worse) thing that makes me realize the political process is futile.

[angelatc]

Would you get off Reagan's dick already? Afghanistan won the Cold War by getting the Soviets into a war of attrition for 10 years and draining their resources, just like they did to the U.S.

I'm not the one with Reagan's stick up my butt. IN a discussion about electoral politics, I said that he won his second election in a landslide, and immediately got inundated with never-ending libertarian hand-wringing about why he didn't actually deserve it.

My point remains: He won.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

But I do see RAND PAUL FORUMS growing exponentially as we get closer to the elections as thousands and thousands of Hillary and Christie and such voters join to constantly post and complain what a worthless piece of shit Rand Paul is along with many of the members we already have.

Then we will start growing again,you can count on it.

George Bush, is that you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U

[CCTelander]

You're the one that flaunts the "Love it or leave it," rhetoric. What's stopping you? Or would you rather just incessantly bitch?


I'm betting on the latter.

[angelatc]

I'm betting on the latter.

Says the anarchist that doesn't even believe in voting and who has nothing better to to than to hang around a political activism forum bitching about the political activists?....LOL!

[georgiaboy]

Rand said:

Sure, taken alone. But how about these quotes from the EXACT same piece:

This came right after the part you quoted, does that sound like Kristol? you have a problem with that statement?

Got a problem with that suggestion?

Disagree with that one, AF?

How about that suggestion? I understand the private property potential implications but in theory seems like a good idea.

Disagree with that one?

Fuck a bunch of G-8, suspend, boycott, sure. nothing good would come from it anyways. Disagree with that suggestion, aF?

Sure, let the EU build and pay for their own missile shield. I don't even think we should be deciding that for them. We certainly shouldn't be paying for it. Got a problem with that suggestion AF?

Yeah, that sure sounds like Kristol and Rove. lol I take it you disagree with that comment by Rand as well?

Wow, Rove and Kristol are sounding better every day if that sounds like them.

That silly Rand, talking about money again when he should be talking about how to start a war or support Nazis.

Damnit Rand, quoting Eisenhower. Your dad would never do that!

There he goes intervening like a neocon again.

The horror, Rand you neo

Did you even read the article? I quoted most of it, all of that is from the same place. He specifically lays his suggestions for the how and why.

/fanboi out.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting for me. Rand could'a left the red meat off the menu, but I understand it weren't for me.

Standing with Rand.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Say the anarchist that doesn't even believe in voting ....LOL!

I'm pretty sure just about every anarchist here voted for Ron, either during the primaries or as a write-in during the general election.

[outspoken]

The elites still hate on Rand as demonstrated time and again by both the right n left media which leads me to believe he is on the right path. He is a much strong politician than his father which is not to say that I don't love and revere dear old papa Paul. The apple falls not far from the tree and even Ron stated that Rand agrees with 99% of his views but approaches politics differently.

If not Rand than who??? Hillary or the empty suit that the GOP elites put up? I'll stand with Rand, he is dangerously smart and understand its a chess match. He's already converted many soft neocons which will be necessary to prevent the next power grubbing fascist dictator from getting elected by a bunch of low-info voters still high on phony money.

[phill4paul]

Rand: Sanctions, Visa bans.
Obama: Sanctions, Visa bans.

Um, hmmm.

[Matt Collins]

Viable solutions are impossible from within the system, because the system is the problem.
That's absurd... politics is human nature. You're complaint isn't with politics, it's with the nature of humanity. Which by the way is fundamental to how we interact and isn't going to change.

[Mini-Me]

I'm not sure who I'm more disappointed in:
Rand Paul for letting his rhetoric get dangerous and teetering too far on his tightrope, or the hysterical "traitor," "one of them," etc. accusations from people who act like his rhetoric is what defines him...as if he'd ever actually support war with Russia. :rolleyes: It's one thing to disagree with what he's saying and to be disappointed in it: I disagree, and I'm disappointed. It's something different to forget what he's trying to do and impugn his motives.* This is not the first time he's said something stupid to avoid alienating the conservative grassroots he's trying to gradually convert, and it won't be the last. You can either control your emotions or be controlled by them.

*Once again, it's also important to note the difference between the neoconservative tone of his rhetoric and the far more restrained specifics he proposes too...particularly noting that he needs to offer a counterpoint to absolute neoconservative insanity (direct military intervention leading to World War III) that grassroots conservatives will be willing to accept. I agree with Ron Paul about the stupidity and evil of sanctions, and they are an act of war - in the most technical sense of the phrase - but they're worlds apart from the kind of war the actual neoconservatives are gleefully pushing toward. When the entire fate of the human race could be at stake, I'm not going to burn Rand as a witch for erring too far on the side of not alienating conservatives...because if he does, that will drive them right back into the arms of the people who - in Paul Craig Roberts's own words - think nuclear war can be won. The implications of Rand alienating the conservative grassroots in such an environment are pretty grave. Also, note that while it may be excessive to call Russia's intervention an invasion, Putin's actions are nevertheless a strongly interventionist measure that Ron Paul also disagrees with, so it's not like anyone is out-of-line for speaking out against them in the first place.

[mad cow]

George Bush, is that you?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P8U


Hillary Clinton,is that you?

I have no idea what you meant by your post so I thought I would answer it just as moronically.

[ZENemy]

That's absurd... politics is human nature. You're complaint isn't with politics, it's with the nature of humanity. Which by the way is fundamental to how we interact and isn't going to change.

The nature of humanity is to lie to people to elevate yourself to a higher position? Please provide proof and evidence that "politics" are human nature, what studies can you show me? I for one, do not need a master or have I ever.

"If humans are inherently evil then no government can be created to manage them since that government would draw from the same pool of inherently evil people. A prison guarded by prisoners."

[Matt Collins]

Maybe its only in my circle, but in my circle of friends Rands move sent absolute shock-waves through us.
Absolutely, and that's because Rand didn't do it the right way. They shoud've softened the blow and explained what was coming ahead of time and in advance so that there wouldn't be a large shock value. They really botched the way they did the endorsement because they failed to consider the effect on Ron's supporters.




I guess I should thank Rand Paul for REALLY opening my eyes with that fucked up "political" move. That dirty move (to me it was dirty, you can call it whatever you please) caused me to really open my eyes. Then you must be equally mad at Ron for endorsing bad Republicans in the past too, right?



it looked like someone stabbing their dad in the backDo you REALLY think that Ron and Rand didn't discuss this in advance? :rolleyes:



Seriously, try to think for yourself, not just have emotional knee-jerk reactions.

[Dr.3D]

The elites still hate on Rand as demonstrated time and again by both the right n left media which leads me to believe he is on the right path. He is a much strong politician than his father which is not to say that I don't love and revere dear old papa Paul. The apple falls not far from the tree and even Ron stated that Rand agrees with 99% of his views but approaches politics differently.

If not Rand than who??? Hillary or the empty suit that the GOP elites put up? I'll stand with Rand, he is dangerously smart and understand its a chess match. He's already converted many soft neocons which will be necessary to prevent the next power grubbing fascist dictator from getting elected by a bunch of low-info voters still high on phony money.
Many here wouldn't be happy with Rand unless he was saying he wanted to convert the U.S. to anarchism. Of course if he did that, he wouldn't have a chance to do anything at all.

[LibForestPaul]

rand should have been silent and or much more restrained. There are other means to stating national borders should be respected.

[Matt Collins]

If humans are inherently evil then no government can be created to manage them since that government would draw from the same pool of inherentlyevil people. A prison guarded by prisoners.You're catching on to something here.... no system is perfect because humanity is imperfect. Under any system there will be aggression and fallacies and flaws.

The trick is finding a "more perfect" system or a "closer to perfect" system in which there is minimal invasion of individual rights while still securing individual rights (upholding contracts, providing justice)

[specsaregood]

Rand could'a left the red meat off the menu, but I understand it weren't for me.

Standing with Rand.

Yeah, I don't like the red meat either; but what I see here is what I often see from Rand: taking a bad situation and using it as an excuse to promote legislation that I would think the VAST majority of rpfers support. Just like our enemies do the opposite (let no good crisis go to waste). I happen to agree with pretty much everything he suggested and said. I'm not a big fan of sactions or visa bans but both of those are minor compared to the great responses he suggested.

I'm standing with Rand, if that makes me a fanboi, so be it. It is better than being one that can't see the forest for the trees.

[angelatc]

rand should have been silent and or much more restrained. There are other means to stating national borders should be respected.

He couldn't be quiet - the media and the internet were aggressively looking to paint him with the "isolationist like his father" mark.

[Brian4Liberty]

Either walking your military into another country is right or it's wrong. It isn't right for Russia and wrong for the U.S. You can't take this side on principle today and that side on principle tomorrow, because if you do you have no more genuine principles than a liberal. Crimea may have voted to secede from the Ukraine, and that may have even been a legitimate vote. But that doesn't mean Russia has a right to occupy before the people of the Ukraine even have time to digest that vote. It isn't unreasonable to expect them to forbear until the Ukranians have time to decide if separation is unquestionably the answer, and make preparations for it if it is--such as, perhaps, helping those who don't want anything to do with Russia to relocate.

Of course, maybe Russia is just reacting to the EU being too proactive in this thing as well. But the first wrong doesn't make it illegitimate to object to the second wrong...

+Rep

I believe you have identified the essential strategy. Advocate the principles when it's popular, and you will have that to reference when sticking to those same principles at a later time (when it might not be popular).

Much better than all of the gross hypocrites out there right now. Obama and the progressives love democracy, except when the vote doesn't go the way they want. Their siblings, the neoconservatives, have a main principle of whatever serves them today (usually war), consistency and principle be damned. Hypocrites all.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

You're catching on to something here.... no system is perfect because humanity is imperfect. Under any system there will be aggression and fallacies and flaws.

The trick is finding a "more perfect" system or a "closer to perfect" system in which there is minimal invasion of individual rights while still securing individual rights (upholding contracts, providing justice)

Pretty sure anarchy minimizes the invasion of individual rights more than a delusion based on a piece of paper.

[Peace&Freedom]

Everybody remembers the scene in Rambo II where our hero literally hides in the mud, to act as camouflage for his subsequent surprise attack, right? That is what Rand is doing here, the only difference being neo-con belligerent rhetoric is dirtier than mud.

[angelatc]

Rand: Sanctions, Visa bans.
Obama: Sanctions, Visa bans.

Um, hmmm.

John McCain: Nuclear attacks
Mitt Romney: Drone bombings

[ZENemy]

Absolutely, and that's because Rand didn't do it the right way. They shoud've softened the blow and explained what was coming ahead of time and in advance so that there wouldn't be a large shock value. They really botched the way they did the endorsement because they failed to consider the effect on Ron's supporters.

So, next time they need to coordinate their lies?



Then you must be equally mad at Ron for endorsing bad Republicans in the past too, right? Yup


Do you REALLY think that Ron and Rand didn't discuss this in advance? :rolleyes: I have no idea and neither do you, you are presenting your opinion as fact.



Seriously, try to think for yourself, not just have emotional knee-jerk reactions. Are you really going to drag me through this Rand apologist script and then tell ME to think for myself?

[ZENemy]

You're catching on to something here.... no system is perfect because humanity is imperfect. Under any system there will be aggression and fallacies and flaws.

The trick is finding a "more perfect" system or a "closer to perfect" system in which there is minimal invasion of individual rights while still securing individual rights (upholding contracts, providing justice)


Or, you just keep telling people that so you never get overthrown.

[specsaregood]

Pretty sure anarchy minimizes the invasion of individual rights more than a delusion based on a piece of paper.

Look around, our govt doesn't follow that piece of paper, rules or laws. We already live in a state of anarchy. Hope you are enjoying it.

[phill4paul]

John McCain: Nuclear attacks
Mitt Romney: Drone bombings

Ron Paul: “I think sanctions are horrible. They’re acts of war,”

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks, well done, that's what I was looking for.

No, I did not read the article, I've been way out of the loop, with work, as all this has been developing.

There have been multiple articles out there.





Sure, taken alone. But how about these quotes from the EXACT same piece:

This came right after the part you quoted, does that sound like Kristol? you have a problem with that statement?


Got a problem with that suggestion?


Disagree with that one, AF?


How about that suggestion? I understand the private property potential implications but in theory seems like a good idea.


Disagree with that one?


Fuck a bunch of G-8, suspend, boycott, sure. nothing good would come from it anyways. Disagree with that suggestion, aF?


Sure, let the EU build and pay for their own missile shield. I don't even think we should be deciding that for them. We certainly shouldn't be paying for it. Got a problem with that suggestion AF?


Yeah, that sure sounds like Kristol and Rove. lol I take it you disagree with that comment by Rand as well?


Wow, Rove and Kristol are sounding better every day if that sounds like them.


That silly Rand, talking about money again when he should be talking about how to start a war or support Nazis.


Damnit Rand, quoting Eisenhower. Your dad would never do that!


There he goes intervening like a neocon again.


The horror, Rand you neo



Did you even read the article? I quoted most of it, all of that is from the same place. He specifically lays his suggestions for the how and why.

/fanboi out.

[ZENemy]

Look around, our govt doesn't follow that piece of paper, rules or laws. We already live in a state of anarchy. Hope you are enjoying it.

No we do not.

Anarchy is the rejection of "Rulers" and we sit with issues mostly caused by RULERS. We are not represented we are yelled at.

We do not have anarchy we have out of control RULERS acting lawlessly. Literally the opposite of anarchy.

[angelatc]

Ron Paul: “I think sanctions are horrible. They’re acts of war,”

Ron Paul didn't win any presidential elections.

[TheGrinch]

I'm not sure who I'm more disappointed in:
Rand Paul for letting his rhetoric get dangerous and teetering too far on his tightrope, or the hysterical "traitor," "one of them," etc. accusations from people who act like his rhetoric is what defines him...as if he'd ever actually support war with Russia. It's one thing to disagree with what he's saying and to be disappointed in it: I disagree, and I'm disappointed. It's something different to forget what he's trying to do and impugn his motives. This is not the first time he's said something stupid to avoid alienating the conservative grassroots he's trying to convert, and it won't be the last. Control your emotions, people.

+1, this thread is just the same usual suspects knee-jerking without even trying to determine what he actually said and thinks. One side yells "sellout", the other side drives another wedge by acting like he's just playing politics, neither of which may be very true at all.

I was initially very disappointed in these statements by Rand, but the more I look into the issue, I think we'd all be on Rand's side if the US were doing the same thing, occupying another nation and holding a sham of a vote that doesn't leave them with a good option of true independence. Gunny is doing a great job of arguing this in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?446982-97-of-Crimenas-vote-to-join-Russia

Under normal circumstances I am vehemently opposed to sanctions in most cases, but in the case of an aggressive occupying nation, I see no issue with refusing to do business with them, and to try to fill the void that would allow the US to supply Europe, and give them another choice than have to do business with them. If this were anyone but the government doing it, then we'd call the boycotts a free market solution.

Outing himself as a neocon? Playing the game? Sounds to me Rand is doing what he said he'd do, being a realist who will take any peaceful step to not only prevent our own aggressive actions, but to condemn others as well.

[phill4paul]

Ron Paul didn't win any presidential elections.

Yeah, we get that winning a presidential election is all that matters to you.

[CCTelander]

Viable solutions are impossible from within the system, because the system is the problem.


Exactly. But the political junkies will, apparently, never "get it."

[TheGrinch]

Ron Paul didn't win any presidential elections.

You're just as bad as those who knee-jerk against Rand, in trying to drive your own wedge by acting like he's being dishonest to get elected. Why you think that is endearing to mainstream republicans is beyond me.

You all need to start doing your homework before you use whatever Rand says and does to support your personal agenda. It's intellectually dishonest.

[angelatc]

Yeah, we get that winning a presidential election is all that matters to you.

Something we can agree on, then.

[angelatc]

You're just as bad as those who knee-jerk against Rand, in trying to drive your own wedge by acting like he's being dishonest to get elected. Why you think that is endearing to mainstream republicans is beyond me.

You all need to start doing your homework before you use whatever Rand says and does to support your personal agenda. It's intellectually dishonest.

I am being intellectually dishonest by happily admitting that I'm being intellectually dishonest?

For me, things are far more complicated than just this one issue. For one thing, I like to think that if Rand Paul was in office, Russia wouldn't be worried about NATO installing missiles on its border.

And that if Rand Paul was in office, the USA wouldn't have played any part in ousting a democratically elected official in order to make that happen.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Look around, our govt doesn't follow that piece of paper, rules or laws. We already live in a state of anarchy. Hope you are enjoying it.

Yeah because anarchy is just chock-full of people who throw others in cages and go to war :rolleyes:

[mad cow]

I'm pretty sure just about every anarchist here voted for Ron, either during the primaries or as a write-in during the general election.

What would you think about a self-proclaimed anarchist working for a Government school that is totally financed by money taken at gunpoint from taxpayers for decade after decade after decade,even if they never had any children or grandchildren of their own to benefit from that armed robbery?

Wouldn't you call such a so-called anarchist a worthless stinking Statist hypocrite?

Then again,yellow and black anarchist tee-shirts don't grow on trees...

[specsaregood]

No we do not.

Anarchy is the rejection of "Rulers" and we sit with issues mostly caused by RULERS. We are not represented we are yelled at.

We do not have anarchy we have out of control RULERS acting lawlessly. Literally the opposite of anarchy.
I'm gonna have to disagree.



a situation of confusion and wild behavior in which the people in a country, group, organization, etc., are not controlled by rules or laws

Sounds like the situation here in the US. Our country, and people are not controlled by rules or laws. It is controlled by the whims of people with power.
Its just like you would get with the utopian anarchy with those people with power doing whatever they want. Look around, embrace it, if that's what you support, enjoy it.

[dillo]

Heres my take

Rand Paul could very well be a neo-con that just caters to the growing liberty wing of the GoP. But from a strategic standpoint he could also be a libertarian that is willing to play the game of politics. The hardest part of being elected president for a non neo-con is going to be the primary. Those neo-con love their hawk candidates, and so does the media. So let me list the scenarios as I see it.

1. Rand Paul is a non-interventionalist that dishonestly represents some hawkish views to get through the primary and secure the nomination. He has a very good chance against any Democrat, I think hes incredibly popular among indies.

Good Outcome
2. Rand Paul is a neo-con that is dishonestly representing some pro liberty views to rally the base and win the nomination and election.

Bad Outcome

3. Rand wins the nomination but loses to Hilary

Bad Outcome, roughly the same as #2

4. We abandon Rand and he doesn't win the primary

Bad Outcome, as a neo con will be president

A third party won't win this cycle, maybe in 20 years but not now. To simplifly, any probable outcome that doesn't have Rand as POTUS is worse than Rand securing the POTUS and revealing his true neo-con colors. That is because there is a chance that he is just politicking. He is the best chance we have had since Goldwater to get a good person in the office and if he turns out to be a neo-con, itll be no different than any other person that couldve won this cycle.

IMO we should be cautious but patient with Rand, the GoP is an ugly party to play in right now and Politics has never been a gentlemans game.

[Matt Collins]

Yeah, we get that winning a presidential election is all that matters to you.
If you are to have political change, you have to be able to win at least some elections. Policy and law is created as a result of elections. Therefore if you are unable to influence the electoral process, you are unable to influence the legislative process too.

[phill4paul]

I am being intellectually dishonest by happily admitting that I'm being intellectually dishonest?

For me, things are far more complicated than just this one issue. For one thing, I like to think that if Rand Paul was in office, Russia wouldn't be worried about NATO installing missiles on its border.

And that if Rand Paul was in office, the USA wouldn't have played any part in ousting a democratically elected official in order to make that happen.

"I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it. "-Rand Paul

[TheGrinch]

I am being intellectually dishonest by happily admitting that I'm being intellectually dishonest?

Umm, yes? :confused:

[Matt Collins]

Pretty sure anarchy minimizes the invasion of individual rights more than a delusion based on a piece of paper.No, not at all. Anarchy is mob rule, same as democracy. Anarchy does not respect individual rights.

[Deborah K]

I haven't read through the whole thread because I'm getting pissed off. Look, Dr. Paul is not only the founding father of this movement, he paved the way for his son (who is cut from the same cloth), but who has had to do a certain amount of infiltrating in order to gain the support that his father never could. FFS, politics is dirty - we ALL know that!!

If he runs for President, will you vote for him or not?? I will!!! Please tell me - who out there comes as close to his father's philosophy, and has as good a chance as he does? My guess is that if he ends up the nominee, all you whiners will change your tune!

[Matt Collins]

So, next time they need to coordinate their lies?
What lies? WTF are you talking about? No one lied about anything. :rolleyes:



Then you must be equally mad at Ron for endorsing bad Republicans in the past too, right? Yup
Fair enough, but I doubt your sincerity to that answer.

The reality is that there are certain requirements to hold political office and not get booted. Endorsements of your party are one of them.


Do you REALLY think that Ron and Rand didn't discuss this in advance? :rolleyes: I have no idea and neither do you, you are presenting your opinion as fact.
I've worked for both Ron and Rand for a while now. I know both of them personally.

[Matt Collins]

Ron Paul: “I think sanctions are horrible. They’re acts of war,”Unfortunately Ron is incorrect on this point, or at least not as nuanced as he should be.

Sanctions are only an act of war of the country they are being opposed upon considers them as such.

[angelatc]

"I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it. "-Rand Paul

You do not think the Europeans should pay for their own defense?

And there's this:
A 2012 GAO report found that the phase four interceptors may be poorly placed and of the wrong type to defend the United States.[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_missile_defence_system#cite_note-29) This capability was planned to be in place by 2020, but this has "been delayed to at least 2022 due to cuts in congressional funding."[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_missile_defence_system#cite_note-30)

[phill4paul]

You do not think the Europeans should pay for their own defense?

That had NOTHING to do with what you wrote and the quote I posted in response. Nice try at diversion though.

[Danke]

"I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it. "-Rand Paul

And when they send missiles to Cuba this time, make the Cubans pay for them, dammit!

[phill4paul]

Unfortunately Ron is incorrect on this point, or at least not as nuanced as he should be.

Sanctions are only an act of war of the country they are being opposed upon considers them as such.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

[phill4paul]

And when they send missiles to Cuba this time, make the Cubans pay for them, dammit!

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1566/200710/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1566-385783.jpg

[TheGrinch]

I posted a thread on the Benswann.com article about the problem with libertarian purists, but it's clear that those bickering in this thread could also use a lesson in not acting morally or intellectually superior, or in assuming the worst of those they disagree with:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?447030-Libertarian-Purists-Libertarian-on-Everything-Except-Liberty

[Natural Citizen]

I haven't read through the whole thread because I'm getting pissed off.


Well, If you get around to it please do take the time to read my postings. I did try to make sure that mine were actually relevant to scope. The larger picture. I've shared a few papers throughout the board in the last couple of days as well that approaches things in scope as opposed to what I'm seeing here. Lot's of dumbing down going on. What is being sold as the issue in this thread is not the issue at all. Grinch got me to chuckling and so I don't think he has a darned clue about the depth of what is happening with the U'S. and Germany/EU.

[PierzStyx]

I cannot believe how many of you are willing to let your supposedly intellectual indiviual minds be lead on by what someone else says about an article they partially quote. You're all acting like knee-jerk sheeple. How about reading Rand's actual words and then deciding. Here is the full article, link at bottom for those who wish to give Time hits and read it there.


Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a gross violation of that nation’s sovereignty and an affront to the international community. His continuing occupation of Ukraine is completely unacceptable, and Russia’s President should be isolated for his actions.

It is America’s duty to condemn these actions in no uncertain terms. It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression.

Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.

This does not and should not require military action. No one in the U.S. is calling for this. But it will require other actions and leadership, both of which President Obama unfortunately lacks.

I recommend a number of specific and decisive measures to punish Putin for his ongoing aggression.

Economic sanctions and visa bans should be imposed and enforced without delay. I would urge our European allies to leverage their considerable weight with Russia and take the lead on imposing these penalties. I would do everything in my power to aggressively market and export America’s vast natural gas resources to Europe.

I would immediately remove every obstacle or current ban blocking the export of American oil and gas to Europe, and I would lift restrictions on new oil and gas development in order to ensure a steady energy supply at home and so we can supply Europe with oil if it is interrupted from Ukraine.

Because of so many of our current needless laws and regulations, President Obama has left Europe completely vulnerable because of its dependence on Russian oil and gas.

I would support immediate construction of the Keystone Pipeline.

It is important that Russia become economically isolated until all its forces are removed from Crimea and Putin pledges to act in accordance with the international standards of behavior that respect the rights of free people everywhere.

We should also suspend American loans and aid to Ukraine because currently these could have the counterproductive effect of rewarding Russia. Ukraine owes so much money to Russia that America would essentially be borrowing from China to give to Russia.

The U.S. should suspend its participation in this summer’s G-8 summit and take the lead in boycotting the event in Sochi. If Putin’s troops remain in Crimea at the time of the summit, Russia should be expelled from the group.

I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic, only this time, I would make sure the Europeans pay for it. The problem with the foreign policies of both Democratic and Republican administrations is that they never give a second thought to how America can afford what they implement.

America is a world leader, but we should not be its policeman or ATM.

At the end of the day, I still agree with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen — the greatest threat to America’s security is our national debt.

Russia, the Middle East or any other troubled part of the world should never make us forget that the U.S. is broke. We weaken our security and defenses when we print money out of thin air or borrow from other countries to allegedly support our own.

Like Dwight Eisenhower, I believe the U.S. can actually be stronger by doing less.

Like Ronald Reagan, particularly regarding Russia, I also believe, “Don’t mistake our reluctance for war for a lack of resolve.”

I stand with the people of Ukraine against subjugation and support their efforts to restore freedom. The Ukrainian people must be free to determine the fate and future of their own nation without unwarranted military or political intimidation from Russia.

Reagan’s policy of “peace through strength” requires strength of the sort President Obama now fails to project. But what some American leaders, including some in my own party, often forget is that lasting peace was always Reagan’s ultimate objective.

I have said, and some have taken exception, that too many U.S. leaders still think in Cold War terms and are quick to “tweak” the international community. This is true.

But mutual respect and practical diplomacy is a two-way street, where Russia or any other nation should not be tweaking us, or their neighbors, either.

Putin’s invasion and occupation of Crimea certainly now go far beyond tweaking.

The U.S., in cooperation with the international community, should respond to Russia’s aggression with action.

The Budapest Memorandum said that Russia wouldn’t violate the integrity of Ukraine, but now it has. There is no realistic military option in this conflict, at least for the U.S. But this does not mean there aren’t options, many of which I’ve outlined here.

The real problem is that Russia’s President is not currently fearful or threatened in any way by America’s President, despite his country’s blatant aggression.

But let me be clear: If I were President, I wouldn’t let Vladimir Putin get away with it.

Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky

http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/



Now holy crap, imagine that. Rand Paul isn't recommending a neocon solution to the issue but an economic one. One that increases foreign trade and cuts international aid while building diplomatic and trade ties with the rest of Europe. That is far from being "neocon" whose position is represented by John MCCain who does want to use aggressive military force in Ukraine. Those of you calling Rand a neocon are making yourself look like asses. That is what happens when you allow others to tell you what to think and confirm your own biases though instead of actually reading the article itself. You're essentially doing to Rand what was done by the Establishment to Ron. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Stop acting like stupid cows and start thinking again.

[angelatc]

That had NOTHING to do with what you wrote and the quote I posted in response. Nice try at diversion though.

OK - The Czech Republic borders Russia?

[angelatc]

Lot's of dumbing down going on.
*snicker*

[pcosmar]

And that if Rand Paul was in office, the USA wouldn't have played any part in ousting a democratically elected official in order to make that happen.
What makes you think that?

i will remind you of Iran Contra.
oh,,and Operation Ajax

both under the "Rs" as well.

[PaulConventionWV]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually believe Crimea, of all places, is going to be the spark that started WW3? Why does anyone care what happens to Crimea?

[TheGrinch]

I cannot believe how many of you are willing to let your supposedly intellectual indiviual minds be lead on by what someone else says about an article they partially quote. You're all acting like knee-jerk sheeple. How about reading Rand's actual words and then deciding. Here is the full article, link at bottom for those who wish to give Time hits and read it there.
http://time.com/17648/sen-rand-paul-u-s-must-take-strong-action-against-putins-aggression/



Now holy crap, imagine that. Rand Paul isn't recommending a neocon solution to the issue but an economic one. One that increases foreign trade and cuts international aid while building diplomatic and trade ties with the rest of Europe. That is far from being "neocon" whose position is represented by John MCCain who does want to use aggressive military force in Ukraine. Those of you calling Rand a neocon are making yourself look like asses. That is what happens when you allowi others to tell you what to think and confirm your own biases though instead of actually reading the article itself. You're essentially doing to Rand what was done by the Establishment to Ron. YOu should be ashamed of yourselves. Stop acting like stupid cows and start thinking again.


In my experience here, far too many are as bad as the damn media in taking out of context statements to try to twist it to meet their agenda or preconceptions.

Every damn time I walk into one of these Rand threads, I start off disappointed in Rand, and after reading what he actually said, my disappointment immediately shifts to those using contextless soundbytes as weapons.

[angelatc]

What makes you think that?

i will remind you of Iran Contra.
oh,,and Operation Ajax

both under the "Rs" as well.

What makes me think that? The fact that he is Ron Paul's son, for starts.

I get it. You don't like Rand Paul and will work tirelessly to ensure that the election is Cruz v Hilary. That way we can all again be united in our endless miserable assertions that nothing will ever truly change.

Can we be done now?

[pcosmar]

I've worked for both Ron and Rand for a while now. I know both of them personally.



http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?446293-I-did-an-8-hour-police-ride-along-today-it-was-fascinating

So.
Your credibility is questionable,

[Natural Citizen]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone actually believe Crimea, of all places, is going to be the spark that started WW3? Why does anyone care what happens to Crimea?

This is the first true blowback that has come as a result of the pillaging of the resources and democratic processes and economics of a long list of nations at a time when legislation such as the TPP exists which legalizes and solicits a notion of justification of the invasion of sovereignty of these countries by western corporate power is being kept secret. Ukraine is being looted right now in a host of ways. But we're distracted by what the heck boy wonder has to say about something that really only serves as a distraction (while justifying it out of the other side of his mouth) in the first place when we look at the larger issue and more important factors that aren't being touched with a ten foot pole.

And I'd add that Putin doesn't care one bit about this sanction nonsense. Again, it's a bit more intricate than the narrative that we're getting from the usual suspects in the media and political office.

The sanctions that are being threatened run in perfect alignment with the bluprint for the TPP and justification for these corporate powers and money men to continue to invade the sovereignty of these nations while pillaging their natural resources and economic/political processes that are aligned with those resources. Look what is happening after they waxed off Gaddafi. Cripes, they're pillaging their water and selling it back to them in plastic bottles. Among other things.

I'd really like to know if Ukraine still has all of it's gold. You know? Getting back to Germany and the U.S.....

I'll bet that's long gone and the FR is already restocked.

[phill4paul]

OK - The Czech Republic borders Russia?

Keep trying.


The US missile defense complex in Poland, also called the European Interceptor Site (EIS), was part of the Ballistic Missile Defense European Capability of the US. It was intended to be located in Redzikowo, Słupsk, Poland, forming a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system in conjunction with an US narrow-beam midcourse tracking and discrimination radar system located in Brdy, Czech Republic. It was to consist of 10 silo-based interceptors: two-stage versions of the existing three-stage Ground Based Interceptors with Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles and a closing speed of about 7 km/s. The plan was cancelled in 2009 and subsequently replaced with a phased plan—the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, which will include SM-3 Block IIA interceptors to be positioned in Poland around 2018.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland

[NIU Students for Liberty]

What would you think about a self-proclaimed anarchist working for a Government school that is totally financed by money taken at gunpoint from taxpayers for decade after decade after decade,even if they never had any children or grandchildren of their own to benefit from that armed robbery?

Wouldn't you call such a so-called anarchist a worthless stinking Statist hypocrite?

Then again,yellow and black anarchist tee-shirts don't grow on trees...

I'm an anarchist teaching at a public school (however I do have an interview with a private school in April) but I would hardly say I'm doing the government's bidding as you'd like to believe. I actually have a lot of flexibility and creativity when it comes to teaching the social studies curriculum at my school, presenting my students with multiple perspectives, including libertarian/anarchist viewpoints on human interaction.

Do I agree with the government's immoral "one size fits all " approach to education? Absolutely not. But given the unfortunate reality that it has a monopoly on education, preventing any substantial choice from taking place, I'm not going to just sit back and not teach. I want to give these kids the skills to think on their own and I'm not going to sit back and watch some other statist take my place and indoctrinate them.

[pcosmar]

What makes me think that? The fact that he is Ron Paul's son, for starts.


That means exactly diddly-squat.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Under normal circumstances I am vehemently opposed to sanctions in most cases, but in the case of an aggressive occupying nation, I see no issue with refusing to do business with them, and to try to fill the void that would allow the US to supply Europe, and give them another choice than have to do business with them. If this were anyone but the government doing it, then we'd call the boycotts a free market solution.

Governments aren't people, and they aren't the free market. Additionally, what you call a boycott is in fact a ban on individuals wishing to exchange with other individuals.

The assumption of sanctions, like with income (and other) taxes, is that the government owns your production, and allows you to keep or trade to the amount they choose.

[Mini-Me]

I'm an anarchist teaching at a public school (however I do have an interview with a private school in April) but I would hardly say I'm doing the government's bidding as you'd like to believe. I actually have a lot of flexibility and creativity when it comes to teaching the social studies curriculum at my school, presenting my students with multiple perspectives, including libertarian/anarchist viewpoints on human interaction.

Do I agree with the government's immoral "one size fits all " approach to education? Absolutely not. But given the unfortunate reality that it has a monopoly on education, preventing any substantial choice from taking place, I'm not going to just sit back and not teach. I want to give these kids the skills to think on their own and I'm not going to sit back and watch some other statist take my place and indoctrinate them.

We live in the world we live in, and we can either do the best we can to change it, or we can disengage to avoid sullying ourselves with our involvement. Ron Paul spent three decades as a "tax feeder," and while he returned much of his salary and skipped out on the pension (since he could afford to do without it), he still spent some of it on food, mortgage, etc. Anyone prepared to call you a hypocrite needs to call Ron Paul a hypocrite as well to be consistent...but just because you can cope with the world today doesn't make you a hypocrite for proposing something different!

Besides, let's be honest with ourselves: Would the world have been better or worse off if Ron Paul hadn't "sullied himself" by taking public office? The extortion that feeds both of your salaries is a violation of the NAP, but Ron Paul didn't get so far by viewing the NAP as an absolute mandate that he could never break or bend under any circumstances whatsoever. Ron Paul got so far because he realized the NAP is an ideal that we strive toward asymptotically, and many of us never would have even heard of it if Ron wasn't willing to "sully himself." If we're ever going to live in a world where the NAP is respected as a rule, we have no choice but to engage, both to deprive absolute despots of their positions of power and influence, and to make our impact as wide and deep as possible.

The world is better off with you teaching than not. That may sound utilitarian to some, but I'll take imperfect libertarians indulging in limited utilitarianism in the pursuit of maximizing respect for deontological morality over perfect libertarians so ascetic and rigid they'd rather leave the world to unlimited utilitarianism.

[Feeding the Abscess]

We live in the world we live in, and we can either do the best we can to change it, or we can disengage to avoid sullying ourselves with our involvement. Ron Paul spent three decades as a "tax feeder," and while he returned much of his salary and skipped out on the pension (since he could afford to do without it), he still spent some of it on food, mortgage, etc. Anyone prepared to call you a hypocrite needs to call Ron Paul a hypocrite as well to be consistent...but just because you can cope with the world today doesn't make you a hypocrite for proposing something different!

Besides, let's be honest with ourselves: Would the world have been better or worse off if Ron Paul hadn't "sullied himself" by taking public office? The extortion that feeds both of your salaries is a violation of the NAP, but Ron Paul didn't get so far by viewing the NAP as an absolute mandate that he could never break or bend under any circumstances whatsoever. Ron Paul got so far because he realized the NAP is an ideal that we strive toward asymptotically, and many of us never would have even heard of it if Ron wasn't willing to "sully himself." If we're ever going to live in a world where the NAP is respected as a rule, we have no choice but to engage, both to deprive absolute despots of their positions of power and influence, and to make our impact as wide and deep as possible.

The logical conclusion of mad cow's position is that, if you object to the government's existence, you must hold your breath until you die; otherwise, you are a statist hypocrite. Literally nothing in the world is untouched by government, whether by direct creation or from regulation, down to the air you breathe.

[angelatc]

Keep trying.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland

And did Russia agree to it?

[mad cow]

I'm an anarchist teaching at a public school (however I do have an interview with a private school in April) but I would hardly say I'm doing the government's bidding as you'd like to believe. I actually have a lot of flexibility and creativity when it comes to teaching the social studies curriculum at my school, presenting my students with multiple perspectives, including libertarian/anarchist viewpoints on human interaction.

Do I agree with the government's immoral "one size fits all " approach to education? Absolutely not. But given the unfortunate reality that it has a monopoly on education, preventing any substantial choice from taking place, I'm not going to just sit back and not teach. I want to give these kids the skills to think on their own and I'm not going to sit back and watch some other statist take my place and indoctrinate them.

So you aren't going to march in there tomorrow and tell them that if they don't stop their Statist ways,you quit?

You won't starve if you quit tomorrow but you will compromise your morals to potentially make more money than you could at another job,at the same time criticizing Rand for not ruining his chance to potentially become President of the United States of America by not alienating a huge chunk of potential voters?

I look forward to maxxing out to Rand Paul for President.Among my many political and moral beliefs are I think that every US troop should be brought home tomorrow,we should quit NATO,SEATO and the UN,every drug including heroin,crack and meth should be totally legal everywhere without prescription,all public financing of education should stop....

And on and on and on.
If Rand Paul came out with a speech tomorrow supporting exactly what I just said,I would not give him a penny and spend that money on hookers and blow or somewhere else it might do me some good 'cause he ain't ever gonna be elected.

[angelatc]

That means exactly diddly-squat.

It means nothing to you, but it means a lot to me.

[devil21]

That means exactly diddly-squat.

I disagree. Direct genetics plays a huge role in how people's brains function. It's why you see the same mannerisms from family members, handwriting similarities, etc. You can not underestimate the influence that simple genetics plays. Consider why Presidents are almost always related to each other. Why monarchies maintain strict bloodline rules. That's probably not a discussion for this thread though. It doesn't mean a carbon copy but it does mean basic brain chemistry and thought processes will be, at least, similar.

[angelatc]

I disagree. Direct genetics plays a huge role in how people's brains function. It's why you see the same mannerisms from family members, handwriting similarities, etc. You can not underestimate the influence that simple genetics plays. Consider why Presidents are almost always related to each other. Why monarchies maintains strict bloodline rules. That's probably not a discussion for this thread though. It doesn't mean a carbon copy but it does mean basic brain chemistry and thought processes will be, at least, similar.

Seems to be true for the Bush clan.