Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RAND PAUL/VAN JONES 2016: (HAS THE GOP REALLY STOOPED THIS LOW TO SUPPORT THIS CLOWN?)
sultanknish.blogspot.com ^ | 3/9/2013 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 03/09/2013 6:15:57 PM PST by RaceBannon

Here's an easy way to tell when your position isn't a conservative one. When you're standing with Van Jones, your position isn't a conservative one. When you're standing with Code Pink, then your position is not a conservative one.

No amount of noise or chest-beating is going to change that.


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: 113th; codepink; gopelitistfear; greenfieldinsanity; lunacy; rand; randisright; randsconcerntrolls; randtheman; unhingedposter; vanjones; waronfreedom; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150 next last
RAND PAUL/VAN JONES 2016

Here's an easy way to tell when your position isn't a conservative one. When you're standing with Van Jones, your position isn't a conservative one. When you're standing with Code Pink, then your position is not a conservative one.

No amount of noise or chest-beating is going to change that.

The Republican Party has taken a severe beating in the last year. With so many hopes down the drain, some will take a victory where they can find it, even if it's a younger version of Ron Paul.

There are Conservative sites that are positively giddy about Rand Paul getting positive mentions from John Cusack and Van Jones. Code Pink's endorsement is being treated like some kind of victory.

Are we really getting worked up about getting a pat on the head from the left? Are we all Paultards now or are we all RINOs now?

Or is finding someone to the left of Obama to side with... supposed to be a victory for conservative principles?

"Will the Left finally get the Tea Party now?" Breitbart's site asks. If Andrew Breitbart were alive, he could have answered that question in one four letter word.

The left "gets" the Tea Party. It gets it as a middle class bourgeois defense of its property and rights against the the rule of the left.

That is what the Tea Party is. That is what the Left is.

Even saner heads are calling Rand Paul's filibuster a political victory. The only place that it's a victory is in the echo chambers of a victory-starved party. And to Code Pink and Van Jones who are happy to see the Republican Party adopting their views.

The "brilliant victory" was that some Republicans tried to go further on the left than Obama on National Defense. Maybe next they can try to go further left than him on Immigration, Gay Marriage and Abortion.

And if that doesn't work, Rand Paul and Jon Huntsman can get together on ending the War on Drugs.

Most Americans support using drones to kill Al Qaeda terrorists. Most Americans don't know about the filibuster or care. Most Americans want political and economic reforms, not conspiracy theories.

The Paul filibuster was about drone strikes on American soil, the way that Obama 'only' wants to ban assault rifles.

This isn't about using drones to kill Americans on American soil. That's a fake claim being used by Rand Paul as a wedge issue to dismantle the War on Terror. Now that he manipulated conservative support for that, he can begin moving forward with his real agenda.

Rand Paul is on record as opposing Guantanamo Bay and supports releasing the terrorists. He's on record opposing drone strikes against Al Qaeda terrorists in Pakistan, saying, "A perpetual drone war in Pakistan makes those people more angry and not less angry."

This position is no different than that of his father. The only difference is that Rand Paul is better at sticking statements like these into the middle of some conservative rhetoric.

It's the same trick that Barack Obama pulls every time he gives a speech.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) blasted fellow GOP Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday, saying the two “think the whole world is a battlefield.”

Like Ron Paul, Rand shifts the blame to America. It's not Senator McCain who thinks the whole world is a battlefield. It's Al Qaeda.

Here, in the middle of Rand Paul's drone rant is what he really stands for and against.

It's one thing to say yeah, these people are going to probably come and attack us, which to tell you the truth is probably not always true. There are people fighting a civil war in Yemen who probably have no conception of ever coming to America.

The people fighting that "civil war" are tied in with Al Qaeda, including the Al-Awlaki clan, whose scion, Anwar Al-Awlaki helped organize terrorist attacks against America and was linked to 9/11.

Friedersdorf (Andrew Sullivan's underblogger) goes on to say we do know the U.S. drones are targeting people who have never pledged to carry out attacks in the United States, so we're talking about noncombatants who have never pledged to carry out attacks are being attacked overseas.

Think about it, if that's going to be the standard at home, people who have never really truly been involved with combat against us. Take Pakistan where the CIA kills some people without even knowing their identities. This is more from Friedersdorf.

Think about it. If it were your family member and they have been killed and they were innocent or you believe them to be innocent, it's going to - is it going to make you more or less likely to become involved with attacking the United States?

This isn't about stopping Obama from killing Americans. This is straight-line anti-war garbage.

You know, or how much - if there's an al-Qaida presence there trying to organize and come and attack us. Maybe there is. But maybe there's also people who are just fighting their local government.

How about Mali? I'm not sure in Mali they're probably worried more about trying to get the next day's food than coming over here to attack us.

And a politician reciting Michael Mooreisms like these is supposed to stand for a "Conservative Victory"?

I think that's a good way of putting it, because when you think about it, obviously they're killing some bad people. This is war. There's been some short-term good. The question is, does the short-term good outweigh the long term cost, not only just in dollars but the long-term cost of whether or not we're encouraging a next generation of terrorists?

Is this the new conservative position now? That killing Al Qaeda terrorists only encourages more terrorism?

Are we all Paultards now?

The other thing about this is, is you need to try to understand who - who are these terrorists? Members of al-Qaida. There are no people walking around with a card that says "al-Qaida" on it. There are bad people and there were bad people associated with the terrorists. We've killed a lot of them who were in Afghanistan training and part of the group that attacked us. But there are terrorists all over the world that are unhappy with their own local governments. Some of them are unhappy with us, too. But to call them al-Qaida is sometimes a stretch, and sometimes open to debate, who is and who isn't. But then they use other words, and words are important. They're either a member of al-Qaida or associated forces. I don't know what that means.

And here is the ultimate point.

This isn't about opposing drone strikes on Americans, it's about using that to salami slice the debate to get to his real agenda which is opposing drone strikes on Al Qaeda.

Ultimately we as a country need to figure out how to end war. We've had the war in Afghanistan for 12 years now. The war basically has authorized a worldwide war.

This is Rand Paul's position. It's the position of anti-war protesters in 2002. It's Barack Obama's original position before he discovered that war wasn't so easy to end.

If you stand with Rand, this is what you stand with.

Everyone can do what they please, but if you're going to stand with Rand, then let's be clear about his positions and agenda. And be clear about whether you share them or not.

No more dressing this up in "Rand Paul is standing up for the Constitution." That's the same dishonest claim his father made for years. And none of the even more dishonest, "Drone strikes on Americans in cafes" nonsense.

That's not what this is about.

1. Do you think that the United States is murdering innocent Muslims and inspiring terrorist attacks?

2. Do you think that if we just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone?

3. If you think all those things, then wasn't the left, which has been saying all these things since before September 11, right all along?

Is Van Jones agreeing with you... or are you agreeing with Van Jones?

One blogger called the filibuster the biggest Republican victory since the midterm elections. Sure. In one case, the Republican won the House of Representatives. In the other a guy who believes that drones are a New World Order conspiracy got to trend on Twitter at night for a few hours.

For years Ron Paul supporters believed that flying a blimp and googling Who Is Ron Paul would lead to the people coming over on September 11 being caused by American foreign policy. It hasn't and it won't. Every Paultard victory was an imaginary triumph that took place in their own bubble. Now the Republican Party is climbing into an even smaller version of that bubble.

And then a few years from now we can celebrate every one of the Paul clan's publicity stunt complete with the No Drones blimp while losing by a landslide to Hillary Clinton.

The lesson that the Republican Party refuses to learn is that you don't win by abandoning conservative values.

You don't win by going liberal on immigration.

You don't win by going liberal on government spending

You don't win by going liberal on social values.

And you don't win by going liberal on national defense.

You either have a conservative agenda or a mixed bag. And Rand Paul is the most mixed bag of all, because the only area that he is conservative on is limited government.

If the new Republican position is open borders, pro-terror and anti-values, then what makes the Republican Party conservative?

Reducing conservatism to cutting the size of government eliminates it and replaces it with libertarianism. It transforms the Republican Party into the party of drugs, abortion, illegal immigration, terrorism... and spending cuts. And the latter is never going to coexist with a society based on the former.

This isn't the popular thing to write. The popular thing to write is to praise Rand Paul for his political theater and to call it courage. And then maybe to timidly dissent in one or two areas, while praising him as the future of the Republican Party.

But if Rand Paul is the future of the Republican Party... then the party has no future.

I don't blog on Sultan Knish to be popular. If I did, I would have embraced Paul Ryan as the savior of the Republican Party, back when that was the thing to do. I would have never criticized Bush until 2007 or so when it became legit. And I would be busy evolving on gay marriage and immigration.

Still I considered not writing this. It would have been easier to throw up some easy observations about Obama. And move on.

But I regret not speaking out in the past as much as I should have done. And while it would be easy to let this go, to let Rand Paul have his anti-war moment and let Marco Rubio have his immigration moment, so they can run in 2016 and show how wonderfully diverse our party is while bringing in the 'kids'... I don't believe that we can win through political expediency that destroys principles.

We tried that in two elections and we lost. Watering down what we stand for until we stand for nothing at all except the distant promise of budget cuts is how we walked into the disaster of 2012.

John McCain in 2008. Mitt Romney in 2012. Rand Paul in 2016. And what will be left?

To be reborn, the Republican Party does not need to go to the left. It doesn't need to stumble briefly to the right on a few issues that it doesn't really believe in. It needs to be of the right. It needs to be comprehensively conservative in the way that our opposition now is comprehensively of the left.

If we can't do that then we will lose. America will be over. It'll be a name that has as much in common with this country, as modern Egypt does with ancient Egypt or as Rome of today does with the Rome of the imperial days.

And we will be able to distract ourselves with the latest political gimmick. The latest piece of theater.

Conservative media voices have been growing incoherent lately, adopting positions that contradict their last positions and the positions that they will take a week from now.

We are suffering from a conservatism without context where each day and each week's position exists in a vacuum and is not guided by bedrock principles.

Too much of that same media has become guided by attacking Obama. Not by attacking Obama from conservative principles, but just by attacking him. And the problem with that is when you define yourself by attacking Obama... you become defined by Obama.

Conservatives are defined by positive principles, by the presence of values, not by negative principles, by pure antipathy. We attack Obama because of what we believe to be true, not because we believe that everything he believes is false.

The slippery slope is that when you become defined by what you attack, then you lose sight of what you do stand for. And then suddenly you find yourself standing on the same side as Van Jones and Code Pink.

Reagan said that conservatism is a three legged stool. Social, fiscal and national defense. Either we have all three. Or we have nothing.

There are Conservative sites that are positively giddy about Rand Paul getting positive mentions from John Cusack and Van Jones. Code Pink's endorsement is being treated like some kind of victory.

"Will the Left finally get the Tea Party now?" Breitbart's site asks. If Andrew Breitbart were alive, he could have answered that question in one four letter word.

The left "gets" the Tea Party. It gets it as a middle class bourgeois defense of its property and rights against the the rule of the left.

That is what the Tea Party is. That is what the Left is.

The left is not concerned about the Constitution. It does not care about civil rights. It cares about taking over. Allying with the far left against the middle left is allying with the people who really want to enslave you to further radicalize the system.

If the Cold War should have taught us anything, alliances like these end with the duped handing a victory to the left.

We can fight the left. We can fight the Islamists. Or we can cheer a man who is pushing the agenda of both.

There's nothing conservative about that.

1 posted on 03/09/2013 6:15:57 PM PST by RaceBannon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

When your position makes Eric Holder squirm, you are on the right track.

I don’t have a lot of use for a hard lefty like Nat Hentoff, but just because he is pro-life, doesn’t make all pro-lifers Hentoff-lefties.


2 posted on 03/09/2013 6:18:47 PM PST by Dr. Sivana ("C'est la vie" say the old folks, it goes to show you never can tell. -- Chuck Berry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Since your lonely brain cell didn’t figure this out. Paul didn’t ally with Van Jones, Van Jones just agreed with him where only a moron could disagree.

In fact, Ted Cruz gave a great speech about doing the right thing even if it means opposing your own party.


3 posted on 03/09/2013 6:20:27 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; ELS; firebrand; Yehuda; SJackson; 2111USMC; 2nd Bn, 11th Mar; 68 grunt; ...

Van Jones supporting Rand Paul
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/7/van-jones-rand-paul-was-hero-yesterday/

CODE PINK stands with Rand Paul
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/code-pink-thanks-rand-paul/?cat_orig=politics

Rand Paul’s pro-terrorist record
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/02/rand-paul-anti-war-anti-gitmo-and-anti.html

Rand Paul’s hatred of drone strikes against terrorists in terrorist countries outside of the USA
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-transcript-rand-paul-filibuster-20130307,0,3632134,full.story


4 posted on 03/09/2013 6:20:30 PM PST by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Rand Paul was the one trying to stop the sale/gift of F-16s and M1 tanks to Egypt's muslim brotherhood/al quaeda. We're at war with islam, but the government forbids any mention of islam in regard to the enemy, and the GOP helps the dems arm the enemy.

The dems/GOP are the problem. Rand Paul is the cure.

5 posted on 03/09/2013 6:20:39 PM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Your writing skills are excellent, what you said no where near as good!


6 posted on 03/09/2013 6:26:53 PM PST by big bad easter bunny (If it weren't for coffee I would still be living with my parents!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

you are known by the company you keep, by who hates you, and who likes you

and you are also known by the public stances you take, whether they are smart or stupid

Rand Paul is like a stopped clock, right only twice a day, and wrong all the rest of the time


7 posted on 03/09/2013 6:28:11 PM PST by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

There are often strange bed-fellows in politics, but Rand Paul is right on this issue.


8 posted on 03/09/2013 6:28:25 PM PST by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Go Rand!!


9 posted on 03/09/2013 6:30:12 PM PST by toddausauras (FUBO x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

You are a total idiot.

A fool.

Walking down the street, 5 people are walking behind you going the same way.

One is a murderer.

One is a communist.

One is a thief.

One is a wife beater.

One is a paedophile.

They are all walking the same way to get to the bus stop.

The all get on the bus along with you.

Because all of you are going to the ball park to see the game.

So that makes you a wife beater?

A paedophile?

What a fool you are.


10 posted on 03/09/2013 6:31:06 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; LSUfan

Thanks RaceBannon. Know your enemy.
11 posted on 03/09/2013 6:32:42 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

I’m not a 13 year old girl who will be playing your game.

You go ahead and worry about whether the popular kids like you but it doesn’t matter to me.


12 posted on 03/09/2013 6:34:01 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
In fact, Ted Cruz gave a great speech about doing the right thing even if it means opposing your own party.

Well said cripplecreek, well said.

13 posted on 03/09/2013 6:35:44 PM PST by Katiana Kalashnikova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Exactly.


14 posted on 03/09/2013 6:35:56 PM PST by Katnandu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

You do realize that “Ron Paul” and “Rand Paul” are different people, don’t you?


15 posted on 03/09/2013 6:42:30 PM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Katiana Kalashnikova

What Paul and Cruz did was fire up the base in a way that no one has been able to do for quite a while. I personally prefer the Cruz political package over Paul but right is right.

If Obama screws up manages to do something right I’ll agree with that too.


16 posted on 03/09/2013 6:45:58 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Pretty much an incoherent rant, but the writer left out the defense of Trey Grayson, Rand’s opponent in the Senate primary.

Trey Grayson is a part of any discussion about Rand Paul not being the best choice for that seat.


17 posted on 03/09/2013 6:46:57 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon

If you got on the bus with them, that makes YOU the fool

Did you really think your analogy was accurate?
Wow, you libertarians are dumb!


18 posted on 03/09/2013 6:47:10 PM PST by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

I stand with Rand.


19 posted on 03/09/2013 6:56:32 PM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Big Time.


20 posted on 03/09/2013 6:58:00 PM PST by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/ ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
I have been on Rand Paul's e-mail list for a couple of years now. I have yet to see where he's wrong.

So, if Code Pink is against no-knock warrants real conservatives should be for no-knock warrants? I'm having trouble with that kind of logic.

21 posted on 03/09/2013 7:01:15 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
you are known by the company you keep, by who hates you, and who likes you

Correct. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee stand with Rand. So do I. You stand with McStain and obunghole. Go back to DU.

22 posted on 03/09/2013 7:01:29 PM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
23 posted on 03/09/2013 7:03:22 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

ROTFLOL Excellent!


24 posted on 03/09/2013 7:04:18 PM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye; cripplecreek

dittoes


25 posted on 03/09/2013 7:07:03 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

After years of watching John Bonehead, Eric Cancer, John McStupid and Goober Graham roll over before Obama, it’s like a breath of fresh air to see someone finally taking a principled stand. Fight on, Rand!


26 posted on 03/09/2013 7:07:18 PM PST by Fiji Hill (Io Triumphe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Calling him a clown? Ridiculous.


27 posted on 03/09/2013 7:08:13 PM PST by Katnandu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

RINOs get thrown out first. Then we take care of the rest of them.


28 posted on 03/09/2013 7:08:55 PM PST by AdaGray (squi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

RINOs get thrown out first. Then we take care of the rest of them.


29 posted on 03/09/2013 7:09:05 PM PST by AdaGray (squi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill

I wont deny I like a lot of what he has been saying, but when he repeats his fathers mantra, along with CODE PINK, that we are in perpetual war, that we started it crap

then Rand is a loser to me

repeating any of the CODE PINK lingo, that ANSWER speech code words, so much that VAN JONES will praise you???

Rand Paul is poison, stay away!


30 posted on 03/09/2013 7:14:40 PM PST by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

so does CODE PINK
SO DOES VAN JONES
GO BACK TO DU

Troll...


31 posted on 03/09/2013 7:15:30 PM PST by RaceBannon (Telling the truth about RINOS, PAULTARDS, Liberals and Muslims has become hate speech)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
Troll...

Your mirror is befuddling you again eh, stoopit?

32 posted on 03/09/2013 7:16:53 PM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

What do International ANSWER, Cynthia McKinney and Cindy Sheehan think?


33 posted on 03/09/2013 7:19:21 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (I'll raise $2million for Sarah Palin's presidential run. What'll you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
This isn't about opposing drone strikes on Americans, it's about using that to salami slice the debate to get to his real agenda which is opposing drone strikes on Al Qaeda.

I have no idea who this author is, but he's defintitely a moonbat.

34 posted on 03/09/2013 7:23:14 PM PST by PistolPaknMama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Geez, this post is a prime example of the idiocy on this site.


35 posted on 03/09/2013 7:24:03 PM PST by caver (Obama: Home of the Whopper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdaGray

Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, James Dobson and Steve Forbes, and Jim Bunning all endorsed Rand Paul during the primary, Trey Grayson was just terrible.

We had to get rid of Grayson, here is some information about Paul posted by me from threads during the primary against Trey Grayson.

Paul leads Grayson among pro-lifers by a 50%-32% margin. Grayson leads Paul among pro-abortion Republicans by a 42%-27% margin.

Conservatives, Christians, social conservatives, and the statewide Kentucky voting population support Rand Paul.

“Conservatives favor Paul by 51 percent to 29 percent with 16 percent undecided. Those who attend religious services regularly or occasionally favor Paul by double-digit margins. Gun owners back Paul 48 percent to 22 percent with 22 percent undecided.”

Rand Paul leads by double digits among men and women, among conservatives, pro-life voters, gun owners.

“Grayson leads today only among the 1 in 5 Republican primary voters who say they are pro-choice.

“When I first started looking at this race, it was because Governor Palin and Steve Forbes endorsed Rand Paul, so I tuned in some and found that Rand seemed OK, and since then James Dobson and Jim Bunning have both endorsed Rand, Dobson was angry for being deceived into having first endorsed Trey Grayson and yesterday, retracting it and endorsing Rand Paul.
What I have learned about Trey Grayson as time went by makes me see him as a guy that needs to be run out of GOP politics, he is much worse than he appeared just a few months ago.”


36 posted on 03/09/2013 7:28:26 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
"that we are in perpetual war..."

Here is the thing that is going to shock you.

We ARE in a perpetual war. And in perpetual crisis. BUT, not the bullshit that code pink spews.

Government needs windmills to tilt with. If not then the mantra of "we need more funds" rings hollow.

We have a war on poverty, a war on drugs, a war on terror, a war on obesity, etc...

This is how politiclowns stir up the clueless masses so they can hand out dollars for solutions to problems that are mostly blown out of proportion OR totally non-existent.

Did you know if we continue to burn fossil fuels the average temperature will be almost 1 degree warmer in 100 years? We need to appoint blue ribbon panels and hire consultants and scientists and have a carbon tax to deal with this massive threat! WE NEED A WAR ON WARMING!!!! (Do I need the sarcasm tag for that last paragraph?)

So you see, we are in a perpetual state of war and thus that allows the government to justify is ridiculous spending habits. Thar's how the HEALTH CARE CRISIS came about and got us Obamacare.

37 posted on 03/09/2013 7:29:07 PM PST by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
LOL. Why even post such a pathetic piece from a cheap blogspot blog? Have you really stooped so low in your hatred of all things Paul?
38 posted on 03/09/2013 7:35:43 PM PST by algernon_garnock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon
You've raised some serious issues, but I'm not ready to buy the idea that Rand Paul is guilty by association. In politics, strange bedfellows team up all the time.

Surf over to Vote Smart and check out his ratings by various organizations across the political spectrum. The ACU, JBS and Club for Growth rate him at 100 percent, and he gets an A from the NRA and a B+ from Gun Owners of America. Meanwhile, he gets goose eggs from several labor unions and low marks from other liberal outfits.

39 posted on 03/09/2013 7:40:05 PM PST by Fiji Hill (Io Triumphe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

I stand with Daniel Greenfield, and you RaceBannon on the matter of Rand Paul.

I’m NOT going to get into the fray here today, but Rand Paul is as I posted a week or so ago before the filibuster, and I think still as unstable a person as is his father. I further posted that Rand Paul is as you stated RaceBannon like a clock right twice a day, and when he’s right the crowds cheer, and he turns and runs them over with a bulldozer. He’s as nuts as his father.

There’s enough evidence to back up my statement above out there being ignored by so many who seem desperate for a show such as Rand Paul put on during the process to confirm Brennan. The future will see hopefully many come around to note we can’t afford unstable individuals in our government. We already have too many ie; Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and more.


40 posted on 03/09/2013 7:45:31 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

Certainly, part of vetting ought to be what he thinks of his father’s mentor, Lew Rockwell. You and I were both around on September 11, 2001, when the posts about Lew Rockwell shouting about how it was all America’s fault were rolling in. Anybody in any way associated with that has a high bar of mistrust to overcome.


41 posted on 03/09/2013 7:48:18 PM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

New world order (wall street, the foundation system, etc.) has enough of its minions in the top echelons of both ideologies/political parties, “right”/Republican and “left”/Democrat that they effectively control both. Whichever one is in office, the other beats up on them; this is nwo’s simple strategy of always having framed all sides of an argument, which keeps the people arguing completely oblivious to them. Libertarianism and other third parties, unfortunately, are riddled with the same problem.

NWO is heading in the statist direction, so its primary direction is to the left. When Democrats are in power, they therefore take two governmental steps forward in the direction they want to go, when Republicans are in power, they take a step back control-wise, and work on giving their various monopolies more legal latitude and getting as much funding as possible for government military technology initiatives, which profits many companies in their orbit.

At this point, Democrats/the left are therefore mostly quiet on military, CIA, foreign intervention, etc., except the “far left” always protests these things, as that is part of their core ideology/brand.

Libertarians have always been critical of overreach in these areas; that’s a commonality between them and the far left, though the underlying direction they are going is the opposite of the left (the left seeks statism but Libertarians seek minimalist government and individualism).

The common ground of these two movements, however, is helpful to nwo in various ways:

a) makes anyone on the political right suspicious of Libertarians since they appear to be siding with the left; it’s very difficult for Libertarians to gain a lot of traction with the right
b) makes conservatives skeptical of new world order “conspiracy theory” because of “who” is asserting that perhaps strong counterintelligence and clandestine operations may not always be in the best interest of the nation; this serves to enable NWO to hide in plain sight, since a key assertion about NWO is that they have always had undue influence at the State Department and CIA
c) can be used to align the political far-left and center-left around a perceived common enemy, the hardline American “peace through strength” view
d) can be used to attract Libertarians not so well informed to leftism since they will perceive some “common ground” with leftists

Simple research will bear out that the key founding figures in the intelligence communities of the US and UK, as well as most top leadership figures in US government agencies, all have resumes filled with ties to elite banking and its universities, foundations and organizations. While the rank and file may have other backgrounds, the leadership of government is largely of one pedigree, and it’s a rotten one that does not reflect any conservative values despite its pretensions.

Over the past few years, as I busied myself reading about how and why the far left was taking the nation in such a troubling direction, I came across history spanning the entire 20th century that the right has been silent on during my entire lifetime, and with good reason: once you peek behind the curtain of politics you begin to see who the puppetmaster is.

At least we saw something other than bills passed in a near-empty chamber, almost silently, in the middle of the night, though I’d much rather see something else entirely.


42 posted on 03/09/2013 8:15:49 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

So true. I’ll stand with Rand anyday.

I’m more afraid of the US Govt and the police state that is being erected that I am of terrorists.


43 posted on 03/09/2013 8:15:50 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Yes, Rand Paul isn’t perfect—but on this question he was and is right. Now you see the foes of freedom rallying to discredit him in any way they can. When Rand was speaking on the Senate floor I knew this would happen. He’s getting the full Sarah Palin treatment—he’s getting from the old bulls on the RINO side of the GOP and the Liberals and Progressives and MSM. Look to see a mocking of him on future SNL show like the hatchet job Tina Fey did to Sarah Palin. They must stop him, marginalize him and make him the fool. It has worked well in the past—next he will be accused of racism and hitting him over the head with words of his father. Its just starting folks—I hope Rand has some thick skin. He should get together with Sarah Palin and compare notes on what to expect. Same for Ted Cruz and Rubio (watergate). The opening gun has been fired in the GOP Civil War. I am banking on Conservatives and the Tea Party.


44 posted on 03/09/2013 8:25:44 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; cripplecreek; old curmudgeon; All

” - - - When you’re standing with Van Jones, your position isn’t a conservative one. - - - “

WRONG! This is a false assertion, an extrapolation based on a false assumption.

The rest of the article by Daniel Greenfield makes derivative speculations based on that false assumption.

The term “conservative” as used by Dan is without merit as can be tested by the simple question: If Conservatism is advocated, then what is being advocated to be Conserved?

Thus, by re-reading Mr. Greenfield’s article, the reader will conclude that the author of the Article, Dan Greenfield, was unable to provide a single method to what he proposed to do with his first sentence of his article, to wit: “When you’re standing with Van Jones, your position isn’t a conservative one.”

In summary, this article is an ideal candidate for an award from Harvard’s Crimson Newspaper, but really belongs in File 13.


45 posted on 03/09/2013 8:27:18 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Commune Obama"care" violates Anti-Trust Laws, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

The only bus you should get on is the “short bus.”


46 posted on 03/09/2013 8:31:07 PM PST by PatHimself
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

Correction to my above comment: The first sentence in the article by Dan Greenfield proposed to wit: “ Here’s an easy way to tell when your position isn’t a conservative one. “


47 posted on 03/09/2013 8:33:14 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Commune Obama"care" violates Anti-Trust Laws, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

48 posted on 03/09/2013 8:33:59 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks (The amount of ammo you need is determined after the gunfight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

I take it then you disagree with Rand Paul on the issue of drones. Therefore you agree with Obama’s drone policy. Using your logic, you must be a friend of Obama.


49 posted on 03/09/2013 8:42:02 PM PST by CrosscutSaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf; RaceBannon; cripplecreek; old curmudgeon; All
Well, Rand is right on this issue, however, he starting to come out weak on the moral issues:

Paul, a first-term Senator from Bowling Green and rumored 2016 Presidential candidate, spoke to more than 500 Cincinnati-area Republicans over the weekend.

Paul said if Republicans hope to rebound from recent electoral disappointments, the GOP must find new ways to reach out to voters who disagree with the party on hot-topic issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

“We’re going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party,” Paul told the audience.

This isn't the first time Paul has spoken out on the need for the GOP to refashion its approach. He was recently quoted as saying Republicans must "evolve and adapt", or else face continued losses on election day.

50 posted on 03/09/2013 8:50:40 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson