Sen. Paul Responds to Attacks in Israel

[NOVALibertarian]

Of course you didn't. I had to bring it up. Ta daaaaaa

Just because 50% of people (allegedly) don't associate with the two major parties, it doesn't necessarily mean that 50% of people supported Ron Paul. If that was the case, Ron Paul would be President right now. Plus, you're putting way too much stock into this 50% number. I have no idea what poll you're referencing, but calling yourself
"independent" doesn't necessarily mean that said individual will vote for a third party. It just means that said individual's political views don't swing to either extreme and/or they're too embarrassed to tell the pollster that they identify as a Republican or a Democrat.

If true, what is to stop said President from going all Night of the Long Knives on these people?

[green73]

If true, what is to stop said President from going all Night of the Long Knives on these people?

I don't think you realize the extent and depth of the Oligarch's political control. It's not just a few fellows.

[Natural Citizen]

Just because 50% of people (allegedly) don't associate with the two major parties, it doesn't necessarily mean that 50% of people supported Ron Paul. If that was the case, Ron Paul would be President right now. Plus, you're putting way too much stock into this 50% number. I have no idea what poll you're referencing, but calling yourself "independent" doesn't necessarily mean that said individual will vote for a third party. It just means that said individual's political views don't swing to either extreme and/or they're too embarrassed to tell the pollster that they identify as a Republican or a Democrat.

Hoooolyyy Smokes. You're fully indoctrinated, arent you. Do we NOT know how to evaluate the statistics of what just happened in the mid-term? Stock? I'm telling you like it is. And, btw, not to toot my own horn but I recall specifically saying more than a few times on this very forum a year and a half ago that we'd see the largest turnout of independent voters in modern history. I said it word for word. And we did. This will continue.

I'm not even going to consider the rest of your question. Ron could have walked away with 80% of the vote and he still would have lost. It's rigged. And then you have corporate/legacy media right there in the middle of it and narrating the whole thing. They sure did serve Ron's popularity well now didn't they? The guy didn't even show up on their reporting where he was winning but they sure did tell us how the establishment fellers were doing. Cripes, they couln't even put his picture next to his name. Sometimes you'd see an entirely diferent picture of another candidate next to his name. And I could go on and on with that.

I cannot believe that some folks are truly so naive and deluded to just assume and insinuate that we just walked off of the boat yesterday. I've been doing this for over thirty years. If I say 50% then by gosh you can rest assured that it's just that. "Allegedly". Phhht.

[Brett85]

Of course you didn't. I had to bring it up. Ta daaaaaa

I'm logging off. You're plucking my nerves now.

Perhaps I was being a bit unfair, but criticizing Rand for condemning murder is about as radical and extreme as you can possibly get, and it does seem to me like Rand is better off without people like that supporting him.

[presence]

Call me cynical... but if anyone is going to false flag its Zionist Israel.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand has the support of the liberty movement except for the most extreme elements, and he wouldn't want the support of the most extreme elements. If he had the support of people who go around and advocate the murder of cops, for instance, then he would have no chance at all to become President. The only way he can win is if he disassociates himself from those people.

I understand there are a few people who borderline do this (even then its sort of borderline) but most of the time its really more nuanced than that. There are some anarcho-capitalists who support Rand and some non-ancaps who don't, so I don't know that you're statement is strictly accurate.

BTW: I didn't have a problem with what Rand said in this instance.

[Brett85]

I understand there are a few people who borderline do this (even then its sort of borderline) but most of the time its really more nuanced than that. There are some anarcho-capitalists who support Rand and some non-ancaps who don't, so I don't know that you're statement is strictly accurate.

BTW: I didn't have a problem with what Rand said in this instance.

Yeah, I probably got a little carried away with what I said. I just think it's ridiculous for people to criticize Rand for condemning murder.

[green73]

Yeah, I probably got a little carried away with what I said. I just think it's ridiculous for people to criticize Rand for condemning murder.

LOL. You're such a $#@!ing joke.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, I probably got a little carried away with what I said. I just think it's ridiculous for people to criticize Rand for condemning murder.

There are a number of issues with Rand. I still support him, but I'm not happy with everything.

I'm going to assume the best and say that the people who are condemning Rand are doing so not because they think what Rand was condemning was actually OK, but because they think Rand is being a hypocrite for not also condemning Palestinian murders. Kind of like I sometimes condemn people for being hypocrites because they condemn the 9/11 attacks and yet support the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagisaki and so forth. That would probably make me a "radical extremist" in your mind but it doesn't mean I support the 9/11 attacks.

Assuming the best about the people who are criticizing Rand, my thoughts are:

1. I understand

and

2. Really, there are things that Rand is doing that are more questionable than this. It makes sense that Rand is emphasizing things that are going to make him popular and not things that won't. I can live with it.

[Brett85]

LOL. You're such a $#@!ing joke.

What does that make you? You're the one who doesn't have any problem with murder, as long as the dead people are Jews.

[Natural Citizen]

I understand there are a few people who borderline do this (even then its sort of borderline)

There are some nuts out there that align themselves with the liberty movement. But that's a different discussion.

At the end of the day, though, if we recall what our framers had mentioned, we send representatives to Washington to support us. It's not the other way around where some folks just blend in with the bad guys there and then go looking for support. Uh-uh. Nope. That's not how it's supposed to work. It's not about them. It's about us. It's why we send them.

The problem is that we like to do it the other way around and subsequently become selective with the us part. Not Israel. Us

You know, when Columbus supposedly discovered America, what he did was he avoided the better route and aside from all of the fear that those people had back then about the Earth being flat as well as other things, they chose to go the way that, although terrifying, and much harder, completely avoided the Middle East. Now, that's saying something. Those people have been doing this to each other for centuries.

[Tywysog Cymru]

We need to remember that the Israeli government and the Israeli people are different.

[Christian Liberty]

There are some nuts out there that align themselves with the liberty movement. But that's a different discussion.

TC is the one who cares about this. I really don't. Although I am mildly annoyed by a handful of anarcho-capitalists that make other anarcho-capitalists look bad. For instance, Larken Rose brings up some important philosophical questions regarding when it is or isn't justified to respond to police aggression with lethal violence, but then you have guys like Chris Cantwell basically just saying its OK to kill cops, at any time. Mind you, this is kind of a different issue, and even then, I'm not going to say that those types of people (Cantwell and the like) aren't part of the liberty movement, I'll just say that they annoy me a fair chunk of the time.

At the end of the day, though, if we recall what our framers had mentioned, we send representatives to Washington to support us. It's not the other way around where some folks just blend in with the bad guys there and then go looking for support. Uh-uh. Nope. That's not how it's supposed to work. It's not about them. It's about us. It's why we send them.

The problem is that we like to do it the other way around and subsequently become selective with the us part. Not Israel. Us.

I get your point, but the reps don't represent "us". They never have. Statism and personal represenation cannot coexist, ever.

We need to remember that the Israeli government and the Israeli people are different.

So true.

[Feeding the Abscess]

We need to remember that the Israeli government and the Israeli people are different.

Right, but Rand rhetorically and politically supported sending not only the normal amount of yearly foreign aid to Israel's government, but supplemental additions as well. While stating that he was 'standing with Israel'.

[libertarianinternational]

2 words.

False. Flag.

[philipped]

2 words.

False. Flag.

Off.Rip.

[JohnM]

How and when it became compulsory for almost all US Presidential candidates to show their support for a foreign blowback generator country? Guess Rand has to drink water from same well where most other ambitious politicians are lined up.

Like when he told Hannity the other day that past U.S intervention is responsible for the rise of ISIS?

It seems to me that there is a slight tension in Rand Paul's position. I believe that past U.S intervention is indeed largely responsible for the rise of ISIS - and a lot of other blowback.

But the U.S. intervention that is responsible for this blowback consists largely in supporting Israel when Israel does things that infuriate a large proportion of the population of the Middle East.