Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Rand Paul on CNN w/ Michael Smerconish - 4/8

  1. #1



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    I am getting worried about Rand.
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    I am getting worried about Rand.
    For his safety?

  5. #4

    Default

    When it comes to being the anti war champion in Washington, Tulsi G has overtaken Rand by a long time. There is absolutely no ounce of skeptcism in his head. All he wants is for it to be done in the proper way. He commended Bush for coming to congress after the attack on 9/11 and asking for some permission to attack Iraq. He says this failing to mention that the reason given by Bush was false and the region is now on fire because of it.

    A declaration of war right now if brought to congress would pass by a super majority. The republicans always want war would vote yay and the idiot democrats would use the excuse to protect children into approving this. This is where you would see the Bernie bros and Graham gay boys come together on an issue. I don't want there to be a vote and he should be arguing that the people who now are so sure that Assad did the attack without any investigation have lied to use before to get us into war. Also that a war against the secular govt in Syria would be disastrous for the region.

    Time for him to stop acting like a rigid robot and let his humanity guide him. No
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pao View Post
    For his safety?
    Yeah.
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  7. #6

    Default

    Rand has said in many interviews that Assad using chemical weapons makes absolutely no logical sense...To me that is expressing skepticism. He also knows that if debate if forced that fellow colleagues would be forced on record to be supporting another war, it gives time for the public to burn up the phone lines and put some fear into them as happened in 2013 during Obama's attempt to take out Assad. The fake-anti-war/anti-Trump left are waking up, so many Democrats would vote against as would many in Freedom Caucus when they discover how pissed many of their supporters are. I do hope Rand gets more forceful in pushing the facts that point to false flag. He should be teaming up with Tulsi and making joint statements against this crap.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Yeah.
    I might fear that if he was President, but not as Senator.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    When it comes to being the anti war champion in Washington, Tulsi G has overtaken Rand by a long time. There is absolutely no ounce of skeptcism in his head. All he wants is for it to be done in the proper way. He commended Bush for coming to congress after the attack on 9/11 and asking for some permission to attack Iraq. He says this failing to mention that the reason given by Bush was false and the region is now on fire because of it.

    A declaration of war right now if brought to congress would pass by a super majority. The republicans always want war would vote yay and the idiot democrats would use the excuse to protect children into approving this. This is where you would see the Bernie bros and Graham gay boys come together on an issue. I don't want there to be a vote and he should be arguing that the people who now are so sure that Assad did the attack without any investigation have lied to use before to get us into war. Also that a war against the secular govt in Syria would be disastrous for the region.

    Time for him to stop acting like a rigid robot and let his humanity guide him. No
    Agreed. I have no doubt that he is antiwar but he sometimes treats being antiwar as if it is a liability to him. Standing on principal inspires. Especially if it means losing political points.
    A sense of danger gives birth to fear. And fear is the time-honored cross for the crucifixion of liberty.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    When it comes to being the anti war champion in Washington, Tulsi G has overtaken Rand by a long time. There is absolutely no ounce of skeptcism in his head. All he wants is for it to be done in the proper way. He commended Bush for coming to congress after the attack on 9/11 and asking for some permission to attack Iraq. He says this failing to mention that the reason given by Bush was false and the region is now on fire because of it.

    A declaration of war right now if brought to congress would pass by a super majority. The republicans always want war would vote yay and the idiot democrats would use the excuse to protect children into approving this. This is where you would see the Bernie bros and Graham gay boys come together on an issue. I don't want there to be a vote and he should be arguing that the people who now are so sure that Assad did the attack without any investigation have lied to use before to get us into war. Also that a war against the secular govt in Syria would be disastrous for the region.

    Time for him to stop acting like a rigid robot and let his humanity guide him. No
    It's simple politics. Rand ran as a teocon and much of his voter base is teocon. He won by such a wide margin that it's possible he could have ran more libertarian and won and now wouldn't be beholden to the teocons, but he's not sure of himself on that regard. Tusli Gabbard, as a democrat going against a Republican president, has nothing to lose by being hard core on this issue. I agree with you that Rand should shed the timidness and simply reaffirm what he already said which is that this action is unjustified period, act of congress or no act of congress.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    A declaration of war right now if brought to congress would pass by a super majority.
    Uhh.... don't bet on it.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Agreed. I have no doubt that he is antiwar but he sometimes treats being antiwar as if it is a liability to him. Standing on principal inspires. Especially if it means losing political points.
    It is a liability to him. Messaging is important, and if he wants to stay in office he can't come across as a liberal pansy. That doesn't mean he can't be anti-war, he just has to be smart about how he frames it. The other side of that is of course what happened in the Presidential campaign where he over messaged and completely ignored / alienated his base.

    As he once privately told me "it is a tight rope act"
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    It is a liability to him. Messaging is important, and if he wants to stay in office he can't come across as a liberal pansy. That doesn't mean he can't be anti-war, he just has to be smart about how he frames it. The other side of that is of course what happened in the Presidential campaign where he over messaged and completely ignored / alienated his base.

    As he once privately told me "it is a tight rope act"
    It sounded like somebody just dropped a name.
    The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    It's simple politics. Rand ran as a teocon and much of his voter base is teocon. He won by such a wide margin that it's possible he could have ran more libertarian and won and now wouldn't be beholden to the teocons, but he's not sure of himself on that regard. Tusli Gabbard, as a democrat going against a Republican president, has nothing to lose by being hard core on this issue. I agree with you that Rand should shed the timidness and simply reaffirm what he already said which is that this action is unjustified period, act of congress or no act of congress.
    I think people just do not know the amount of risk Tulsi is taking by going against the war machine. Howard Dean who is still a big wig in the democratic party is calling for her resignation. Over at DU, they are calling her a traitor and an Assad defender, they think she is in league with the Russians. What she is doing takes courage and what Rand is doing takes no courage whatsoever.

    The interviewer repeatedly said that Assad gassed him own people like it was gospel and Rand stood there and took it. No talk of asking for a proper investigation, he just took their words for it which is bad. Time would come when the govt would assert with no investigation or evidence something Rand is against and he would have to just believe it cos he has set a precedent for himself.

    He needs to have a bit more backbone in the sort of issues, trying to straddle the middle turns most people off. The people who want war and the people who are against war abandon you.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Uhh.... don't bet on it.
    Maybe so, but I do not want to risk that vote. These people voted for the Iraqi war even with record number of street protests. I would put good money that the bill for an authorization of war against the Syrian govt will pass with a super majority.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    When it comes to being the anti war champion in Washington, Tulsi G has overtaken Rand by a long time. There is absolutely no ounce of skeptcism in his head. All he wants is for it to be done in the proper way. He commended Bush for coming to congress after the attack on 9/11 and asking for some permission to attack Iraq. He says this failing to mention that the reason given by Bush was false and the region is now on fire because of it.

    A declaration of war right now if brought to congress would pass by a super majority. The republicans always want war would vote yay and the idiot democrats would use the excuse to protect children into approving this. This is where you would see the Bernie bros and Graham gay boys come together on an issue. I don't want there to be a vote and he should be arguing that the people who now are so sure that Assad did the attack without any investigation have lied to use before to get us into war. Also that a war against the secular govt in Syria would be disastrous for the region.

    Time for him to stop acting like a rigid robot and let his humanity guide him. No
    What Rand wants to do is bring discussion in congress, without having to first attack anyone for the sake of attacking. Once congressional discussions bring light to the right topics, then Rand has multiple options for pressure points to hit.

    Rand is always leveraging mainstream discussion to highlight his positions.

    The age old debate, if a tree falls in a forest with nobody to hear it, does it make a sound?


    Eventually you'll have to accept that Rand is an influential US senator. Like it or not he does have to be mindful of what he says and how he chooses his battles. Even Justin Amash, now on his 7th year in the house, has become safer overall, the guy endorsed Ryan for Speaker. Tulsi Gabbard is still relatively young and wants to spearhead the anti-war message in her party as she should, she needs something that attracts people since she didn't have a base to start out with. Rand already HAS us, he needs to grow his coalition by looking outward.


    You have to remember, we're in a party which has a hawkish base.


    Congressional approval for War on Syria is not as certain as you say it is. Many in congress are cautious of making another Iraq mistake, not for any principled reason, but for fear that they may be wrong in a few years.
    Last edited by eleganz; 04-09-2017 at 07:38 PM.
    Undeniably effective strategy
    1) REGISTER - email : iowa@randpaul2016.com to request login.
    2) LOGIN & CALL - www.callingfromhome.com
    3) WIN

    Don't pay the media to attack Rand
    Every time you click on the attack articles, you are literally paying them for attacking Rand. If you really want people to see, quote the entire article and break the link.

    be ACTIVE, be EFFECTIVE, be ORGANIZED, be STRATEGIC, be VICTORIOUS.

    How to plug a TWEET in post [ TWEET] [/TWEET ]

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    When it comes to being the anti war champion in Washington, Tulsi G has overtaken Rand by a long time. There is absolutely no ounce of skeptcism in his head. All he wants is for it to be done in the proper way. He commended Bush for coming to congress after the attack on 9/11 and asking for some permission to attack Iraq. He says this failing to mention that the reason given by Bush was false and the region is now on fire because of it.

    A declaration of war right now if brought to congress would pass by a super majority. The republicans always want war would vote yay and the idiot democrats would use the excuse to protect children into approving this. This is where you would see the Bernie bros and Graham gay boys come together on an issue. I don't want there to be a vote and he should be arguing that the people who now are so sure that Assad did the attack without any investigation have lied to use before to get us into war. Also that a war against the secular govt in Syria would be disastrous for the region.

    Time for him to stop acting like a rigid robot and let his humanity guide him. No
    We are at war. ANY chance to stop it lays with congress. If congress votes on it and it passes, when it goes south even farther, those congressmen and senators will have to answer. Congress stopped the Vietnam war simple by cutting the funding off. Obama was elected over Hillary because of her vote for the Iraq war.
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    When it comes to being the anti war champion in Washington, Tulsi G has overtaken Rand by a long time. There is absolutely no ounce of skeptcism in his head. All he wants is for it to be done in the proper way. He commended Bush for coming to congress after the attack on 9/11 and asking for some permission to attack Iraq.
    But Rand is opposing it on it's merits too. He says in his Op-Ed:

    Make no mistake, bombing Assad means the United States is fighting on the same side as ISIS and other radical Islamists in Syria. This is a dangerous and morally wrong policy.
    Protest the NSA! Send encrypted e-mails!
    My PGP Key
    PGP Fingerprint: 3A2E 6218 3722 3701 09C9 54CA 9BB3 104C 5049 B6B2

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    But Rand is opposing it on it's merits too. He says in his Op-Ed:
    If I remember correctly, he said no such thing in the interview. It seems like he was a bit more skeptical and resistant to the idea of war on the Laura Ingrahm show and in the OP ED but for whatever reason he decided to put up no resistance when he goes on a liberal TV program on CNN. It is confusing

    Its the weak, spineless, fence riding, unsure attitude about the whole thing that bothers me. I think one of the things that made Trump popular was that he was assertive on the issues he talked about while he was talking about it. Yes, he may turn around and flip flop later but as he is talking, he acted like he had 100% conviction on the topic and he wasn't going to be talked down from said position.

    That show of strength is very attractive to voters even when the point you are making is completely wrong. He needs to find a way to incorporate some of that tactic into his interviews.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by klamath View Post
    We are at war. ANY chance to stop it lays with congress. If congress votes on it and it passes, when it goes south even farther, those congressmen and senators will have to answer. Congress stopped the Vietnam war simple by cutting the funding off. Obama was elected over Hillary because of her vote for the Iraq war.
    Again, I think these people would be asked to take one for the team. I see the war happening if a bill ever goes to congress. They might use the Libyan style deception to do it. They might say that in order to really fight ISIS, they would need to degrade the capabilities of the Syria army so to keep the soldiers safe and from there, you have a regime change.

    And if that happens, all the pols who voted for it would say that this is not what they voted for and pass the blame to the president and military. I do not trust that these people would resist the urge to go to war. I think the first time it came around, they believed that their mercenary army would be enough to defeat the Syrian military and they almost achieved that goal up until Russia and Iran came in in a very big way. They wouldn't let this opportunity slip them this time around.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Maybe so, but I do not want to risk that vote. These people voted for the Iraqi war even with record number of street protests. I would put good money that the bill for an authorization of war against the Syrian govt will pass with a super majority.
    I think the timing is different.... it's been a long time since 9/11 and I'd like to think the majority of people are war weary at this point. The invasion of Iraq was pushed very close to 9/11 and they tied it in to a lot of people's minds.

    Not only that, it is still Congress' job to authorize war. Allowing them to shirk off responsibility means that they are not held accountable when it all goes wrong. And that's why they don't want a vote, they would rather have the President make the tough calls so that they don't have to go on record.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    ...
    Not only that, it is still Congress' job to authorize war. Allowing them to shirk off responsibility means that they are not held accountable when it all goes wrong. And that's why they don't want a vote, they would rather have the President make the tough calls so that they don't have to go on record.
    Exactly. What we have right now is the dying days of the Roman Senate. Give all power to Caesar, and no one has to take responsibility for anything.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Its the weak, spineless, fence riding, unsure attitude about the whole thing that bothers me. I think one of the things that made Trump popular

    I feel like I can't be the only person who has no idea what you are talking about or how you are coming to that conclusion.

    And weren't you whining about him not supporting Ryancare? I honestly don't get the complaints at all on this stuff. Even a little bit. It is actually baffling.

    And isn't fence riding Trump's specialty? That is kind of like his schtick. He takes every side of every issue.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 04-09-2017 at 10:11 PM.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I feel like I can't be the only person who has no idea what you are talking about or how you are coming to that conclusion.

    And weren't you whining about him not supporting Ryancare? I honestly don't get the complaints at all on this stuff. Even a little bit. It is actually baffling.

    And isn't fence riding Trump's specialty? That is kind of like his schtick. He takes every side of every issue.
    Listen to the interview and you would come of it not knowing for sure if he opposed the war or favored it, only signal I got from it is that he wants the war to be fought with an official declaration of war. And that is the middle ground I was talking out.

    My biggest problem with Rand and Ryancare is that lied about it, he came on TV and said the bill contained an insurance mandate. He said that the insurance mandate that was to be paid to govt is now to be paid to the insurance companies. That was a lie, Ryancare put in a provision that allowed insurance companies to charge up to 30% extra on premium for people with lapse in their coverage. For a person who is worried about the govt bailing out the insurance companies, he should be instead complaining about the govt putting any limits of the fees.

    Other than that, I think it was an OK bill that was better than Obamacare and what was there before Obamacare. I think it is the best we can get but I hope to be proven wrong on this.

    Trump takes one strong(stronger than what we heard in the OP interview) position during one interview on one topic at a time. That is what I want him to incorporate in the way he talks and its not like he incapable of taking stronger antiwar position in that interview. He did just that during the Laura Ingrahm show.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    I think people just do not know the amount of risk Tulsi is taking by going against the war machine. Howard Dean who is still a big wig in the democratic party is calling for her resignation. Over at DU, they are calling her a traitor and an Assad defender, they think she is in league with the Russians. What she is doing takes courage and what Rand is doing takes no courage whatsoever.
    Point well taken. But I see this as more in line with Massie and Amash standing up to Trump on Ryancare. She's not going against her base of voters in her district. Likewise even though some Republicans attacked Massie, he was not going against his base in his district. I can't see a scenario where she loses her congressional seat for going against war in general and Trump war in particular.

    The interviewer repeatedly said that Assad gassed him own people like it was gospel and Rand stood there and took it. No talk of asking for a proper investigation, he just took their words for it which is bad. Time would come when the govt would assert with no investigation or evidence something Rand is against and he would have to just believe it cos he has set a precedent for himself.

    He needs to have a bit more backbone in the sort of issues, trying to straddle the middle turns most people off. The people who want war and the people who are against war abandon you.
    Rand bought into the lie put forward by well meaning but non-thinking people within this movement that "conspiracy theories" cost Ron the nomination. The truth is that being non-interventionist cost Ron Paul the election. Donald Trump has been for more of a conspiracy theorist than Ron Paul ever was at least publicly. But republicans lapped it up. Trump even pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories like Bush could have prevented 9/11 (true) and that there was something suspicious about the Saudis being allowed to leave when other aircraft were grounded. (Also true). The real conspiracy theory in this case is that Assad gassed his own people and Russia participated. But that conspiracy theory is "politically correct."
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    When it comes to being the anti war champion in Washington, Tulsi G has overtaken Rand by a long time. There is absolutely no ounce of skeptcism in his head. All he wants is for it to be done in the proper way.
    BS. He's stated quite clearly that he's opposed to the air strikes in Syria. He's just framing the issue in a way that's more likely to appeal to conservative Republicans.

  27. #26

    Default

    Why is it always oh-so-secret intelligence proving the government's accusations that can never be told to the American people? Rand says at the beginning that he just came from a secret Senate briefing on the attack and that the government, military and intelligence all believe this was perpetrated by the Assad government. But he also said he couldn't tell us what this proof was.

    That's fine if this oh-so-secret government can't tell us what their proof is, or why the Russian explanation of a Syrian missile crashing into a a chemical weapons bunker isn't plausible. That's fine, but they can't expect us to go along with their endless, despicable wars if they aren't willing to show us the proof.

    I don't know how anyone can just go along with a war based on "what the government says" considering that every war the U.S. government has perpetrated on other peoples with the exception of the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and perhaps the Korean War, has been ONE BIG FAT LIE and has proven to have been so.

    So: SHOW US THE PROOF. EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR PROOF IS. EXPLAIN WHY THE RUSSIAN EXPLANATION IS INCORRECT.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    When it comes to being the anti war champion in Washington, Tulsi G has overtaken Rand by a long time. There is absolutely no ounce of skeptcism in his head. All he wants is for it to be done in the proper way. He commended Bush for coming to congress after the attack on 9/11 and asking for some permission to attack Iraq. He says this failing to mention that the reason given by Bush was false and the region is now on fire because of it.
    You should look up the definition of the word "commended". It doesn't mean what you apparently think it does. Stating that a bar, albeit a low one, was met doesn't make a "commendation". That is a mischaracterization of Rand's statement.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    Visiting the Outer Banks of NC?
    Outer Banks Fishing Boat Rentals






Similar Threads

  1. Ron talks about Rand on CNN w/ Michael Smerconish
    By jct74 in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-06-2015, 07:15 PM
  2. Ron talks about Rand on CNN w/ Michael Smerconish
    By jct74 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2015, 10:21 AM
  3. Michael Smerconish | SWOONING (JUST A BIT) FOR RON PAUL
    By JosephTheLibertarian in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 07:33 AM
  4. Ron Paul on Michael Smerconish 1210 AM now
    By yoshimaroka in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-08-2007, 07:44 AM
  5. Ron Paul Interviewed By Michael Smerconish
    By Captain Shays in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-06-2007, 09:50 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
  •