Posted on 03/12/2013 9:23:45 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
Since arriving in the Senate in 2011, Rand Paul has been probing here and there for issues of populist resonance. Audit the secretive, sinister Federal Reserve. Rein in those TSA screeners patting down little girls. In each instance, Paul (R-Ky.) has evoked the fear of oppressive government without tipping over into the paranoia of his father’s most dedicated supporters. It has been a diluted, domesticated, decaffeinated version of the ideology that motivated Ron Paul’s presidential races.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I did, G*D
Thanks for saying that. I am soooo tired of conservatives always whining about why Jews always vote against themselves.
I support Israel, but I do not support liberal Jews.
Just to remind everyone:
Waco- Clinton Administration
Ruby Ridge- G.H.W.Bush Administration
Both parties have innocent American blood on their hands.
Just because you don’t agree with Senator Paul on every issue doesn’t mean his skepticism about the domestic use of drones is wrong.
I agree with about 85% of what Senator Paul espouses and I agree with 5% of what US Rep(ret) Paul espouses.
Scott Walker/Ted Cruz would be at the top of my list now. People are confusing Ron Paul style libertarianism with conservatism. There’s some overlap but libertarians are wrong on numerous issues from border security to gay rights.
You make a mistake when you equate either of the Pauls with the ignorant young liberals that think that the Pauls’ isolationism - or better - their emphasis on National Defense rather than Offense - is the same as pacifism. It’s not.
Ron Paul supported and voted for going to Afghanistan. He quit supporting it when it was turned into a welfare state where we were building infrastructure - more roads to put IEDs, and doing wealth transfers to the corrupt leaders, and trying another failed ‘regime change’ or democratization.
Anyone listening to the filibuster could not have possibly come away thinking the Rand Paul was a pacifist after multiple times, emphatically supporting the use of force against imminent threats in the US and to us overseas - something with which the ignorant pacifist liberals do not support.
The aryan types that would support it and the Israel supporters that don’t, confuse cuts in foreign aid across the board for free market reasons, to ‘anti-semitism’ are just as ignorant as the liberals.
The people of other countries have to do what our forefathers did - pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honors. Only then is true liberty possible. It can’t be handed to a country, just like you can hand out welfare and expect things to change. The Pauls, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey and a few others understand this. McCain, Graham, the Bush’s, and others who don’t understand the basis of liberty and either can’t defend it or only offer ‘pragmatic/fascistic’ solutions, don’t have a clue.
The attack on Rand is to make way for Jeb Bush in 2016.
Rand Paul agrees with his dad on almost every issue (I've never seen him publicly oppose dad on a major issue) and wholeheartedly supported his dad's campaign for President. Their "tone" is somewhat different but they have a very similar worldview and Ron Paul's "Liberty" movement was instrumental in getting Rand in office and strongly supports him. Your post makes no logical sense. It would be like me saying I like 85% of the ingredients in a Whopper Jr. sandwich, but only 5% of the ingredients in a Whopper.
So you’re OK with Walker’s support for Obamacare?
“Personally I’d like to stop wasting lives and resources trying to civilize the savages of the mideast and return to something more akin to the Monroe Doctrine. “
Do you remember when George W. Bush first ran for President? That was part of his platform...stop with the foreign interventions..that was one reason I voted for him....didn’t last long, did it?
The real world has a way of doing that.
Reagan was the last republican to show any kind of restraint about going to war.
Pauls stance on Amnesty is better than the rest of them. At least he’d cut off the magnets.
As he states, we already have defacto amnesty, because few of them, including criminals are being deported. We’re going to have amnesty shoved down our throats. I think I’d rather have Paul in charge of it than anyone else.
Sen. Rand Paul: Trust but verify on immigration reform
www.washingtontimes.com
“I am in favor of immigration reform. I am also wary of reforms granted now for a promise of border security later.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/8/sen-rand-paul-trust-verify-immigration-reform/
I don’t think Rand paul is willing to simply ignore the will of the people and do as he wishes even if he disagrees.
Boehner/McCain 2016 - Let the republican leadership lead!
..
.
.
.
.
..
Can you imagine how well they will do?
/sarcasm
Lets end the GOPe.
I agree creek, I think Paul would uphold the law even if he might work to change it. Works for me.
Right. Objecting to Rand Paul's stance on amnesty and votes in favor of Hagel & Kerry means I want "Boehner/McCain 2016". We all know the choice is either Rand Paul or those two.
/ sarcasm
Any more straw men arguments you got left?
Righttttttttt.
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.