Here is what he wanted for the 2012 budget, has he now reversed himself?
Are you going to try an tell us that he was serious in his fake amendment that got 4 votes and which Cruz didn't vote for?
Posted on 04/07/2015 10:14:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Here is what he wanted for the 2012 budget, has he now reversed himself?
Are you going to try an tell us that he was serious in his fake amendment that got 4 votes and which Cruz didn't vote for?
Well, it certainly refutes your claim that he was some sort of nut. You;re clearly a partisan of the RINO McVain, which makes me question your worldview.
I called him flaky, and you are lying to try and pretend that I am a McCain partisan by explaining why Governor Palin endorsed McCain in 2010.
The 2008 ticket turning on itself would have be devastating to 2010, and McCain would still have won.
It is interesting what you will do to defend Rand Paul, whose endorsements and Romney support and anti-tea party candidate politics, cannot be explained.
Not lying at all, and if he’s so flaky, how come he was in the House for several terms from a relatively conservative state like Arizona?
Sarah either staying out of Arizona or supporting JD would in no way have been “devastating to 2010”. It would merely have been devastating to McVain. I can see no way it would have harmed our candidates in any other state. In fact, it might have helped a couple of other conservatives get nominated.
Rand endorsed Romney AFTER he was a lock for the nomination. Did you support Romney over Obama? Most Republicans did. Even many conservatives (to the consternation of a lot of conservative independents.)
If you did, you took exactly the same position as Rand Paul.
As i see it a fanatical religious sect has declared WAR on the US and the west
that was a while back and they have not let up.....
I don’t want war all the time but I think we have it whether we like it or not
The 2008 ticket at war with itself in 2010, would have killed 2010.
Hayworth left office well over 8 years ago.
Rand campaigned for Romney, and announced in 2013, that he opposed a tea party challenge to McConnell
Paul is pro-choice, anti-military, and doesn’t support marriage, and wants the GOP to move left and become libertarian on social issues.
Why would you be so dedicated to that agenda?
“Rand Paul to steer clear of Mississippi runoff”
“Rand Paul: It’s a ‘misnomer’ to say McConnell isn’t conservative”
“Rand Paul To Campaign for Romney”
March, 2013—”Rand Paul endorses Mitch McConnell in 2014 Senate race, won’t back tea party challenge”
“You need to start trying to be accurate as you push Paul”
No I’m accurately recounting what was said on Sean Hannity last night. Get it? last night. That’s what we are talking about on this thread. Last night.
Did you watch the interview?
Are you saying that Rand Paul did not say he would significantly build up the military last night or are you saying he lied?
If you think he lied well that’s fine. Just say “Rand Paul lied” or “that’s not what he said last month” That’s your opinion.
Don’t say he didn’t say something I and millions of other viewers heard him say. And I know how concerned you are about accuracy. :-)
All three of thse statements are flasehoods.
The 2008 ticket at war with itself in 2010, would have killed 2010.
Asserting it over and over doesn't make it so.
This is why I suspect your views. This kind of "truth by repeated assertion" is what liberals do.
Hey, I am not a professional writer. I have only limited time each day to discuss news items on internet. I type quickly my thoughts. There are lot of typo’s in my posts. Please ignore all that. Sorry if I did not use quotation marks. And I always try to stick to facts and reality. Wishful thinking is long gone after 6 decades on earth.
And yes, I agree that debates will be very interesting for the 2016 cycle. The quality of candidates IMO is better than in 2012. First debate is barely 3 months away!
All three of those statements are accurate, and you are fighting to move the party left as you push for Paul.
Paul wants to reduce the number of GIs and weapons for them, at a time when they are already exhausted and over extended, yet face new threats in Europe and Asia, along with the Middle East and global Islam.
Paul opposes fighting for marriage and opposes DOMA, and says straight out that we need to accept the gay marriage views to “grow the party”.
Paul is not pro-life, and continually becomes more pro-choice as he moves from “1000s of exception” to what we read in this interview.
“”Paul said he believes life begins at conception, but “I also understand that there can be a range of opinions, and to make life better, and to protect more life, I’m willing to go for all kinds of in-between solutions. I think the one thing that we agree on more than others is that a 5- or 6-pound baby, even in the womb, absolutely has life.” Would he make exceptions for rape, incest or the mother’s life? “I’ve supported both legislation with and without. I want people to know I’m pro-life and open to trying to get incremental change. But I’m also open to promoting that there’s something special about life from the very beginning.”””
No, they contradict Paul’s public positions, but you WANT them to be accurate, so yo you they are.
I don’t know when you intend to start sticking to facts, but your attack on the conservative voter as old white men, wasn’t accurate.
Whites, being the native Americans and not immigrants and their recent offspring, are majority republican voters, whether female, male, or under 30.
LOL, no, they don’t contradict his public positions, they ARE his public positions.
Did you not see post 41, did you not see his abortion quotes in the article?
Paul DOES oppose DOMA and he DOES want to move the party left and have it accept gay marriage.
“I think that the Republican Party, in order to get bigger, will have to agree to disagree on social issues,” Paul advised. “The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues.”
Wrong, and you know it, troll.
Rand is strongly pro-life (as his father is — one of Daddy’s sensible positions.)
His view on marriage is (properly) that it’s a state issue.
And I think we should all be in favor of Defense cuts — as long as they do not reduce the ability of our military to do its job when we need it. (Which is not as often as Obama and the neocons seem to think.)
Evidently you don’t know his positions and can’t even read quotes when they are posted to you and his own budgetary proposals for reducing the military and their arms.
So you support stripping the military of even more people and equipment.
You ignore that Paul opposes DOMA and fighting gay marriage.
You ignore Paul’s actual positions on abortion, even when it is at the top of this very page.
I also type quickly and I’m not a professional, either. The preview screen is there for a reason-—so that we can correct our mistakes. Sloppy writing doesn’t reflect well on the site.
If you believe Rand Paul is a conservative, you have yet to make your acquaintance with reality.
I know his positions better than you do, troll.
ansel22 is a troll.
You obviously don’t, you can’t even read the thread article and see them.
You can’t even look at his own military proposals posted in post 41 and see it.
Do you think that Jim Robinson is a “troll”?
To: Starstruck
Yup. Only he wants to adapt, evolve and advance the homo agenda and open borders more than the older democrats were able to do. Sorry, young Turk Rand. Young comrade Obama beat you to it. Forward!
25 posted on 4/6/2014 6:03:30 PM by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
To: SeekAndFind
FURP! Rand Paul is randomly unreliable, ie, a liberaltarian squish.
4 posted on 06/26/2013 5:46:32 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
Even my fading memory is clear on this...I never said “Rand Paul is a conservative”. See..I can use quotation marks after you remind me..haha
AFAIK, and I confess, have not done a detailed study, Rand Paul may be a fiscal conservative because he wants to reduce size of government spending. He is pro-life but willing to compromise for progress in steps. As it exists now, abortions are available on demand at any stage of gestation. He is liberal on use of marijuana and prison time for non-violent drug abusers. On military matters, AFAIK he is a mixed bag. He says he wants a strong military but wants to avoid wars. Why have a strong military if not fighting wars?
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.