Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 99

Thread: Rand on Fox now, wants more aid to Israel and Ukraine???

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    If he pisses them off after 2016, he'll be looking at a one term presidency.

    Where does this all end?
    I don't think he'll care about pissing them off any more after he's elected. I think if he does the hard, fast work to get the economy moving like days of yore, and once the powers that be try to punish us by deliberately trashing the economy again, crap like this will fall right off the radar. Either he and we get the economy going by 2020 or he doesn't get reelected. I don't see a third choice (unless it's the Second Coming).

    I don't see RINO Blatherradio continuing to be of any consequence for very much longer.

    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    I mean, if he's really just playing some game, voting in favor of a few more hundred million in aid, is to be expected. No?
    This is what happens when you try to appease a certain voting bloc with pandering, instead of constitutional talking points.
    If he's really just playing the game, why is he saying nothing other than he'd like us to work with them on the Iron Dome, presumably so we can buy the technology with our contributions to the project? A proposal to which I personally have exactly zero personal, technical and moral objections.

    And what happens when Obama tries to appease a certain voting bloc with pandering is he says that crap during the election then serves only the corporate interests as usual once in office. If Rand Paul cares to reverse that process, he will make himself a hero to the republic. If you will recall, his father's constitutional talking points got drowned out in quixotic, isolationist kooky uncle screaming on the part of the masters of the mainstream media and no one but us heard them. Obviously that was good enough for you, to hear someone making sense in the debates while we chugged right on down the line toward an eighteen billion dollar debt, further erosions of our privacy and liberty, the unprecedented situation of we, the people being forced to purchase products from insurance conglomerates just to legally breathe the air of this nation, and the value of the dollar down to three Indian head pennies.

    Well, guess what? That's not good enough for me. To be quite frank, I don't give a flying $#@! if your ass is properly kissed, or if your panties are in a bunch instead. I want to sneak him into office, and see what he does with it.

    Maybe my faith is misplaced, and maybe it isn't. But I have no faith in a single one of the other candidates, and I know for a fact that I'm right about that. I love my country too much not to take a chance on Rand, and I desperately want him to lie to me about his true intentions just as often as he has to to avoid repeating his father's fate.

    And if you don't like it, well, um, gee, that's a crying shame, there, Doyle. I'll see if I can't figure out how to cry you a freaking river of crocodile tears.

    Oh, and the news that you're severely miffed at whatever it was that Rand Paul said today is about as earth-shattering as the news that the news media is reporting AIPAC's theory that Jascha Heifetz' hangnail was caused by Hamas as fact. Just in case you were suffering any delusions that you've become the least bit unpredictable.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 07-29-2014 at 02:45 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    If he's really just playing the game, why is he saying nothing other than he'd like us to work with them on the Iron Dome, presumably so we can buy the technology with our contributions to the project? A proposal to which I personally have exactly zero personal, technical and moral objections.
    He did say he was in favor of aid to the Ukraine as well, and he said the Iron Dome was a good joint effort. Not really sure how it's joint, other than the U.S. paying for Israel's defense systems in the tune of nearly half-a-billion dollars.

    "Funding for the production and deployment of these additional Iron Dome batteries and interceptor missiles was approved by the United States Congress, after being requested by President Obama in 2010.[29] In May 2010, theWhite House announced that U.S. President Barack Obama would seek $205 million from U.S. Congress in his 2011 budget, to spur the production and deployment of additional Iron Dome batteries."

    and...

    "On 17 May 2012, when Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met with U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the Pentagon issued a statement from the Secretary saying in part, "I was pleased to inform Minister Barak that the President supports Israel's Iron Dome system and directed me to fill the $70 million in assistance for Iron Dome that Minister Barak indicated to me Israel needs this fiscal year."[37]On 18 May 2012, the United States House of Representatives passed the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4310, with $680 million for Iron Dome in Section 227. The report accompanying the bill, 112–479, also calls for technology sharing as well as co-production of Iron Dome in the United States in light of the nearly $900 million invested in the system since 2011.
    SECTION 227, IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, would authorize $680.0 million for the Iron Dome system in fiscal years 2012–15 in PE 63913C for procurement of additional batteries and interceptors, and for operations and sustainment expenses. This section would also require the Director, Missile Defense Agency to establish within MDA a program office for cooperative missile defense efforts on the Iron Dome system to ensure long-term cooperation on this program. The committee is aware that National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) included $205.0 million for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense system for the State of Israel. The committee notes that the Iron Dome system has proven very effective at defeating threat rockets launched at protected targets. The committee also notes that if the full $680.0 million is used on the program, the total U.S. taxpayer investment in this system will amount to nearly $900.0 million since fiscal year 2011, yet the United States has no rights to the technology involved. The committee believes the Director should ensure, prior to disbursing the authorized $680 million for Iron Dome, that the United States has appropriate rights to this technology for United States defense purposes, subject to an agreement with the Israeli Missile Defense Organization, and in a manner consistent with prior U.S.–Israeli missile defense cooperation on the Arrow and David's Sling suite of systems. The committee also believes that the Director should explore any opportunity to enter into co-production of the Iron Dome system with Israel, in light of the significant U.S. investment in this system.[38]
    On 4 June 2012, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee included $210 million for Iron Dome, in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013, S.3254. The bill has been reported out of committee and is waiting to be assigned a date for consideration by the full Senate.[39]
    SEC. 237, AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR IRON DOME SHORT-RANGE ROCKET DEFENSE PROGRAM, said that of the amounts authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2013 by section 201 for research, development, test, and evaluation, defense-wide, and available for the Missile Defense Agency, $210,000,000 may be provided to the Government of Israel for the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense program as specified in the funding table in section 4201.
    On January 17, 2014, President Barack Obama signed the fiscal year 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act. The bill provides $235 million for Israel to procure the Iron Dome system.[40] The Israeli government has also agreed to spend more than half the funds the United States provides for the Iron Dome system in the United States. Funds going to U.S. contractors will increase to 30 percent in 2014 and 55 percent in 2015 from 3 percent previously, according to a U.S. Missile Defense Agency report to Congress.[41]"

    Source for full context and reading if you want:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#Funding

    If you don't have a problem with the U.S. helping pay for Israel's national defense, I don't know how that is considering we are $17+ trillion in debt. Just because there might be some shared technology, doesn't mean we are paying for our own Iron Dome. That would then come at MORE expense to the American taxpayers. Instead of paying Israel more than half-a-billion, they could have used that here. Instead, it's the typical Military Industrial Complex's tentacles in everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    And what happens when Obama tries to appease a certain voting bloc with pandering is he says that crap during the election then serves only the corporate interests as usual once in office.
    I honestly didn't know that we looked at President Obama's broken promises to his voters, as a good thing? But your next point I guess you were trying to make about someone possibly lying and/or giving out false promises to win....

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    If Rand Paul cares to reverse that process, he will make himself a hero to the republic.
    I didn't vote for Ron Paul in 2008, thinking he would be very effective as President, outside of one big area, and another smaller one. I did vote for Ron Paul in 2008 thinking that if he won, he might set the record for most vetoes ever by a President. And that was A-okay with me. I thought it would have been awesome to see him vetoing nearly every single bill Congress sent to his desk.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    If you will recall, his father's constitutional talking points got drowned out in quixotic, isolationist kooky uncle screaming on the part of the masters of the mainstream media and no one but us heard them. Obviously that was good enough for you, to hear someone making sense in the debates while we chugged right on down the line toward an eighteen billon dollar debt, further erosions of our privacy and liberty, the unprecedented situation of we, the people being forced to purchase products from insurance conglomerates just to legally breathe the air of this nation, and the value of the dollar down to three Indian head pennies.
    Ron Paul didn't use "talking points" in the debates. Which is exactly what some of us wanted. He had the record to back them up, and many of us then suggested a speech coach to help tailor his message in debates, and prepare him for them, around his record in a good way for the idiot GOP voters to understand. It's the same thing I'm saying now about Rand, he could be saying certain things in a way that reaches the GOP base, without appearing to be appealing to neocons. He would actually be making any Republican that doesn't agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy, look like Hillary Clinton.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Well, guess what? That's not good enough for me. To be quite frank, I don't give a flying $#@! if your ass is properly kissed, or if your panties are in a bunch instead. I want to sneak him into office, and see what he does with it.

    Maybe my faith is misplaced, and maybe it isn't. But I have no faith in a single one of the other candidates, and I know for a fact that I'm right about that. I love my country too much not to take a chance on Rand, and I desperately want him to lie to me about his true intentions just as often as he has to to avoid repeating his father's fate.
    Again, talking points. If he's simply trying to reach the GOP base on foreign policy, there's a very good way to talk about foreign policy, and it would frame the debate now going into the 2016 election if Hillary runs on the Democrat side (it looks like she will be).

    And if Rand/Ron are the same, I would expect the same from Rand in the veto department, but I have no idea if that would happen. Rand isn't Ron, and is doing some things differently, and some still the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    And if you don't like it, well, um, gee, that's a crying shame, there, Doyle. I'll see if I can't figure out how to cry you a freaking river of crocodile tears.

    Oh, and the news that you're severely miffed at whatever it was that Rand Paul said today is about as earth-shattering as the news that the news media is reporting AIPAC's theory that Jascha Heifetz' hangnail was caused by Hamas as fact. Just in case you were suffering any delusions that you've become the least bit unpredictable.
    If you can cry crocodile tears, please let me know. We might be able to make a video titled, "How Jennifer Rubin feels about Rand Paul" and just show you crying in it. And last I checked, basing opinions on facts, aren't delusions. But nice try at an ad hominem.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    It is your vote. But it would be naive to think that your vote does not negatively influence the outcome of the election when the people who share your views the least are unified, and you split the vote with the people who share your views the most.
    When the people who share my views stop compromising and nominate a candidate who also shares my view, that candidate will have my vote.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    When the people who share my views stop compromising and nominate a candidate who also shares my view, that candidate will have my vote.
    Divide the electorate in half - those who are closer to your views and those who are further from your views. Whichever half compromises *less* among their group loses the election. You seem determined to make your half the half that compromises less.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Divide the electorate in half - those who are closer to your views and those who are further from your views. Whichever half compromises *less* among their group loses the election. You seem determined to make your half the half that compromises less.
    Do what you want with your vote, and I'll do what I want with mine. That's how it works.

    BTW, is that you, Matt?

  8. #66
    Israel is no longer universally popular, and as thing get worse in Gaza, as CNN shows more dead babies, there will be no political upside to supporting them. as far as Ukraine, no one cares about them now. Israel will still be supported by the social cons, but they will vote for Huck anyway in Iowa, and in the general abortion trumps Israel, so no risk of them voting Dem.

    and Rand should be a 1 term president, end this constant campaigning and fund raising. I would like to see it as a promise.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    Pretty stupid. They voted to elect President Obama twice.
    Even more stupid that Bush jr was elected twice.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Do what you want with your vote, and I'll do what I want with mine. That's how it works.

    BTW, is that you, Matt?
    Do what you want with your vote, bit failure to compromise with those who are most like minded is the reason we lose elections, or keep getting our 40000th choice instead of our 2nd choice.. Its your vote and you are perfectly free to do that, but don't pretend that you are oblivious to this effect.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    Even more stupid that Bush jr was elected twice.
    I guess there really hasn't been much of a choice in any of these elections. As bad as Bush was, I don't see how Gore or Kerry would've been any better.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Do what you want with your vote, bit failure to compromise with those who are most like minded is the reason we lose elections, or keep getting our 40000th choice instead of our 2nd choice.. Its your vote and you are perfectly free to do that, but don't pretend that you are oblivious to this effect.
    Who is "we", and what makes you think I have a 2nd choice?

    In 2008, and again in 2012, Ron was my only choice among Republican candidates. I was able to vote for Ron in the 2008 general election because a 3rd party put him on the Louisiana ballot (maybe you think I should have voted for John McCain) and in 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson, seeing no real difference between Obama and Romney. If Rand doesn't get the GOP nod in 2016, I can tell you right now that I will vote LP if I vote at all. I don't have a 2nd choice among GOP candidates.

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Who is "we", and what makes you think I have a 2nd choice?

    In 2008, and again in 2012, Ron was my only choice among Republican candidates. I was able to vote for Ron in the 2008 general election because a 3rd party put him on the Louisiana ballot (maybe you think I should have voted for John McCain) and in 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson, seeing no real difference between Obama and Romney. If Rand doesn't get the GOP nod in 2016, I can tell you right now that I will vote LP if I vote at all. I don't have a 2nd choice among GOP candidates.
    "We" are the half or third of voters who are closest to your own position.

    If you view all other candidates the same then that makes sense. I disagree with the premise though - all other candidates are not the same and some are clearly better than others. If it's going to be "If someone else wins it doesn't matter which one it is because they're all the same anyway", I just don't see that as being the case. Especially when you are suggesting that Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton are so close to the "there is no difference between the two" category that you are barely decided for Rand.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  14. #72
    Sort of reminds me of:
    Matt 10:16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves..."

    My family and friends will tell you I'm the nicest most peaceful guy you could ever want to meet, they will also tell you that I'm pretty scary until you get to know me. (I don't see it ) Not everyone appreciates or respects nice, meek, and peaceful -for those people only some sort of show will do. For example my problem neighbors only respect (barely) a show of crazy/force.

    I absolutely loathe putting on the "crazy show" but I gotta do it sometimes -and I can do it without losing my soul or leading my idiot neighbors astray. I first presented the truth to my neighbors and it had no immediate effect on them. Now they get the "crazy show", but I am always willing to meet them on the high ground should they ever come around. Until then...

    When the U.S. population stops demanding infotainment drama, and the MSM stops pushing it, perhaps then it will be time to stop playing to emotion entirely.

    Until that time... Kabuki-ty buki-ty!

    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    I guess there really hasn't been much of a choice in any of these elections. As bad as Bush was, I don't see how Gore or Kerry would've been any better.
    Kerry, no, just the same. McCain would have been worse. but Gore was against the patriot act, and I doubt if he would have invaded Iraq.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by cindy25 View Post
    Kerry, no, just the same. McCain would have been worse. but Gore was against the patriot act, and I doubt if he would have invaded Iraq.
    He probably would've done a 180 on the issue of government surveillance like Obama did when he became President.

  18. #75
    Rand needs to understand he is being set up. He doesn't have to comment on everything or anything happening when they ask him a question. Until he figures out, the news media is out to destroy him ................. as they did his Dad ... he just needs to stand silent on certain issues. Frankly Rand should never comment on these issues, because he is not privy to all the facts surrounding these issues.

    He is embarrassing me, if he continues on this course; because he is making conjecture without all the facts. What facts is he relying on? Fox News, MSNBC? The Congress critters know just about as much on these issues as you and I do.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    mod delete
    Meh. I think this Rand Paul thing is foolish on so many levels I don't care to list the reasons here, but I understand why people have to try it anyway. I hope it works out. I hope Rand Paul secretly holds his father's views. I hope that TPTB allow him to get elected despite his semi-secret views that go against everything they stand for. I hope that if he gets elected he will be able to reveal and implement true non-interventionist views without getting impeached.

    I don't think it will get that far though. If I were a betting man (and I am), I would bet that any support that Rand Paul may have from outside our small group of misfits, will quickly fall apart as soon as the real voting starts. I hope I'm wrong.
    Last edited by jct74; 07-29-2014 at 11:22 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Divide the electorate in half - those who are closer to your views and those who are further from your views. Whichever half compromises *less* among their group loses the election. You seem determined to make your half the half that compromises less.
    What youre describing is a broken system. Play by that strategy, you may be able to win empty victories in the realm of politics, but you certainly wont make any progress toward real freedom doing that.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  21. #78
    Well that definitely was full of fail.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    What youre describing is a broken system. Play by that strategy, you may be able to win empty victories in the realm of politics, but you certainly wont make any progress toward real freedom doing that.
    Progress happens outside the ballot box when you turn your nonviable candidates into viable candidates by turning the public opinion. Progress does not happen in the ballot box when you vote for candidates who can not win.

    I think voting for your favorite candidate is an incorrect goal. The greater purpose of voting is to influence the outcome of the election. Those are two different things if your favored candidate cannot win in any foreseeable circumstance. This concept may not apply if there is only one candidate who can win under any reasonable circumstance, or if you have no preference at all among the candidates who can win.
    Last edited by Crashland; 07-30-2014 at 12:05 AM.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  23. #80
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Progress happens outside the ballot box when you turn your nonviable candidates into viable candidates by turning the public opinion. Progress does not happen in the ballot box when you vote for candidates who can not win.
    So, when you have a candidate going against the majority of public opinion, or not using words that would turn the public opinion in their favor, what would you call that?
    And voting for candidates that can win, you know what that gets you?
    Apparently $17+ trillion worth of national debt.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    Progress happens outside the ballot box when you turn your nonviable candidates into viable candidates by turning the public opinion. Progress does not happen in the ballot box when you vote for candidates who can not win.
    Rand Paul has a great opportunity to change public opinion. At the least he could challenge it. And I'll give it to you that he has but regardless his statements regarding quite a bit relating to foreign policy have been peculiar at best.

    I am afraid Scott Horton was right. It wouldn't be a good thing for Rand Paul to debate anyone knowledgeable in US foreign policy. He would get smoked. And I'm not saying that to be negative but he isn't coming from a position of principled fact, he is attempting to play their game. People serious about the topic are just shaking their head and the people who take theirs cues from whatever media source they do can tell something is not quite there.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    "We" are the half or third of voters who are closest to your own position.

    If you view all other candidates the same then that makes sense. I disagree with the premise though - all other candidates are not the same and some are clearly better than others. If it's going to be "If someone else wins it doesn't matter which one it is because they're all the same anyway", I just don't see that as being the case. Especially when you are suggesting that Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton are so close to the "there is no difference between the two" category that you are barely decided for Rand.
    I said no such thing. I made it as clear as I possibly could that I wasn't including Rand in this. In fact, I clearly said that I would vote 3rd party or stay home IF Rand didn't win the GOP nomination. (see below)

    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Who is "we", and what makes you think I have a 2nd choice?

    In 2008, and again in 2012, Ron was my only choice among Republican candidates. I was able to vote for Ron in the 2008 general election because a 3rd party put him on the Louisiana ballot (maybe you think I should have voted for John McCain) and in 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson, seeing no real difference between Obama and Romney. If Rand doesn't get the GOP nod in 2016, I can tell you right now that I will vote LP if I vote at all. I don't have a 2nd choice among GOP candidates.



    As for your first sentence, I don't vote for half of some collective of voters. I vote for me.
    Last edited by cajuncocoa; 07-30-2014 at 09:07 PM.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    So, when you have a candidate going against the majority of public opinion, or not using words that would turn the public opinion in their favor, what would you call that?
    And voting for candidates that can win, you know what that gets you?
    Apparently $17+ trillion worth of national debt.
    No matter how you vote, if none of the fiscally sound candidates are capable of winning then you will get $17 trillion either way. So vote for the viable candidate who will waste less money than the others or allocate it better than the others.

    I think the issue here is that knowing your candidate will not win, do you care which of the actually contending candidates does win? If your answer is no then what you are both saying is logically consistent, but we disagree about that premise.



    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I said no such thing. I made it as clear as I possibly could that I wasn't including Rand in this. In fact, I clearly said that I would vote 3rd party or stay home IF Rand didn't win the GOP nomination. (see below)
    Sorry, my bad, that was not you. I was thinking back to jkob's post which I initially responded to which triggered your criticism. That original post was more about being on the edge of supporting Rand.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  28. #84
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashland View Post
    No matter how you vote, if none of the fiscally sound candidates are capable of winning then you will get $17 trillion either way. So vote for the viable candidate who will waste less money than the others or allocate it better than the others.

    I think the issue here is that knowing your candidate will not win, do you care which of the actually contending candidates does win? If your answer is no then what you are both saying is logically consistent, but we disagree about that premise.
    Well, at this point in history, that would be NEITHER the Republicans or Democrats. It seems now both are for spending BILLIONS overseas. A certain 2008 presidential candidate basically said the Democrats probably wouldn't be as bad, because at least they would be trying to spend the money at home. Now though, we have them both spending it overseas, at ridiculous rates.

    But for example, if Hillary is running on fixing ObamaCare, and a Republican is running on defending Israel and getting rid of ObamaCare, by your, "So vote for the viable candidate who will waste less money than the others or allocate it better than the others." I would have to say voting for Hillary would make more sense in that example, because she is allocating money here in the U.S. Not that I believe funding will ever stop, but just the Democrats tend to run more on spending/keeping money at home though their results are horrid, while the Republicans have been running on 9/11 and military spending since 2001.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Rand used the "iron dome" thing to plant the seed of a defensive military strategy in the U.S. as opposed to a interventionist strategy. And seemed to suggest that we could benefit by the Israelis sharing their "iron dome" technology with us. Brilliant, in my opinion.
    And what makes iron dome defensive? The purpose of anti-missile defenses is to allow a country or a military power to engage in unlimited acts of aggression without any fear of effective retaliation. Israel is engaging in a massive bombing campaign because there is no arab deterrent. Iron dome has probably saved some Israeli lives, but it is also killing Palestinian children. Under a regime of mutual assured destruction, those children would live to adulthood and have children of their own.

    Anti-missile defenses aimed at Russia are no different. The purpose of American anti-missile defense is to enable a nuclear first strike against the people of Russia. The idea is that, if you destroy all of the Russian missiles, they can't retaliate, and you can survive a nuclear war. Of course, the Russians are not suicidal, so they will respond to our missile defenses by improving upon and increasing their offensive missiles so that an American first strike does not happen. In this way, the cold war nuclear arms race will be revived.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalom View Post
    And what makes iron dome defensive? The purpose of anti-missile defenses is to allow a country or a military power to engage in unlimited acts of aggression without any fear of effective retaliation. Israel is engaging in a massive bombing campaign because there is no arab deterrent. Iron dome has probably saved some Israeli lives, but it is also killing Palestinian children. Under a regime of mutual assured destruction, those children would live to adulthood and have children of their own.

    Anti-missile defenses aimed at Russia are no different. The purpose of American anti-missile defense is to enable a nuclear first strike against the people of Russia. The idea is that, if you destroy all of the Russian missiles, they can't retaliate, and you can survive a nuclear war. Of course, the Russians are not suicidal, so they will respond to our missile defenses by improving upon and increasing their offensive missiles so that an American first strike does not happen. In this way, the cold war nuclear arms race will be revived.
    I don't really agree with that. Investing in defense is not really offense just because it would give you a strategic advantage if you were to go on offense. There is no such thing as a defense which doesn't do that. You can't have a defense that only works when someone else initiates the conflict.
    Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter

    Life, Liberty, Logic

  31. #87
    2012: 'I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 90% of potential voters
    2016: 'I like Rand Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 10% of people who don't believe in voting
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    2012: 'I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 90% of potential voters
    2016: 'I like Rand Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 10% of people who don't believe in voting
    Two more years of bad foreign policy votes and rhetoric and you'll be surprised at the lack of support.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by nayjevin View Post
    2012: 'I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 90% of potential voters
    2016: 'I like Rand Paul, except on foreign policy.' = 10% of people who don't believe in voting
    Yea but I dont think Rand can take on the establishment unless he has the grassroots support of at least a comparable level to that of Ron Pauls
    A society that places equality before freedom with get neither; A society that places freedom before equality will yield high degrees of both

    Make a move and plead the 5th because you can't plead the 1st

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by orenbus View Post
    Can anyone explain to me why sending arms and money to Ukraine is in the United States best interest? I mean lets say even if Rand is pandering to some in the Republican party what is the logic behind supporting Ukraine or going against the rebels, why do we even care?

    On the Iron Dome thing though I agree with Rand, we have been and should be looking into and funding those technologies for future national security although I start to get concerned when we are funding directly the applications of those systems in Israel for obvious world politic implications.
    Because Putin and Russia suck, ya damn commie surrender monkey.

    Ewe Ess Ay!

    Ewe Ess Ay!

    Ewe Ess Ay!

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Russian envoy applauds Israel’s neutrality on Ukraine
    By JohnCollins in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-23-2015, 07:05 AM
  2. Rand on Fox now, wants more aid to Israel and Ukraine???
    By cindy25 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 10:06 PM
  3. Rand's Statement on Situation in Ukraine
    By Matt Collins in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 08:35 PM
  4. Rand Paul interview on Ukraine and Russia
    By tsai3904 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-26-2014, 04:11 PM
  5. Ukraine academic: Israel imported 25,000 kids for their organs
    By Liberty Star in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 02-10-2010, 10:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •