Posted on 09/02/2014 3:12:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A few days old but more timely than ever.
Speaking to a ballroom later, some of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: “If the president has no strategy, maybe it’s time for a new president.”
In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: “If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.”
John McCormack reminds us that Paul’s previous comment on ISIS was a lot more equivocal than that. (His op-ed last week on the folly of Obama’s interventionist ambitions in Syria offered no strategy on ISIS at all.) You can read the above as credulously or skeptically as you like. Maybe it’s proof that Rand really is more hawkish than his old man and that, after some initial ambivalence, he’s been convinced by the intelligence that crushing ISIS is the only way to defuse the threat. Or maybe he’s looked at the polls lately and noticed that the mainstream conservatives he’s hoping to woo in 2016 are swinging back towards interventionism. Maybe it’s a bit of both. There’s no reason to hold Rand to a different standard than his competitors. Show of hands: Who thinks Marco Rubio’s recent tough talk on comprehensive immigration reform is being driven purely by non-electoral considerations?
I’m curious about the libertarian reaction to all this, though.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Good points.
I guess they are doing the Ideology-First-Nation-Second thing, just like the liberals.. except with a less obnoxious ideology.
He’s right. What’s to disagree with?
Speaking to a ballroom later, some of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: “If the president has no strategy, maybe it’s time for a new president.”
***
The construction of that sentence makes my brain hurt.
Refer madness man -LOL. What a dope.
That is another one of their position to go along with abortion and gays in the military, marriage, etc.
Let’s extract ourselves militarily and monetarily from this latest (oh no…another crisis!) iteration of a foreign entanglement and see how this plays out without us.
The variants of the “religion of peace” (/sarcasm) have enough manpower and weaponry to defeat those (like ISIS) who have hijacked (/sarcasm) the “religion of peace” (/sarcasm) Let them duke/nuke it out.
Pound sand, Rand.
(R.I.P. America’s finest)
Rand Paul’s positions.
- Opposes all gun control legislation.
- Opposes federal government involvement in healthcare.
- Proposed adding security to the border by installing an electronic fence and helicopter stations to respond to breaches.
- Opposes birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.
- Believes the issue of medical marijuana is a states’ rights issue and that the federal government should not interfere.
- Supports term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to the widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation.
- Believes primary Constitutional function of the federal government is national defense, and that the greatest national security threat is the lack of border security.
- Supports returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education.
- Opposed to abortion, even in cases of rape or incest (Huffington Post however says he realizes that there will be no new laws written that further restrict abortion because public sentiment to do so is not there.
- He said he has sympathy for the kids that have been in this county since kindergarten and early grade school and does not support deporting them all.
Like I said, you are a GOP establishment shill.
No, you are just poorly informed, and gullible.
Here is example number one.
Blitzer : Just to be precise, if you believe life begins at conception, which I suspect you do you would have no exceptions for rape, incest, the life of the mother is that right?
Paul: I think that once again puts things in too small of a box. What I would say is there are thousands of exceptions.
There are a lot of decisions made privately by families and doctors that really won’t, the law won’t apply to, but I think it is important we not be flippant one way or the other and pigeon hole and say this person doesn’t believe in any sort of discussion between family and physician.
Blitzer: It sounds like you believe in some exceptions.
Paul: Well, there is going to be like I say thousands of extraneous situations where the life of the mother is involved and other things that are involved so I would say that each individual case would have to be addressed and even if there were eventually a change in the law let’s say people came more to my way of thinking there would still be a lot of complicated things the law may not ultimately be able to address in the early stages of pregnancy that would have to be part of what occurs between the physician and the woman and the family.
Of course we should destroy ISIS, we just need a strategy.
What could you possibly find objectionable to that discussion?
Conside me more informed and even less convinced in your pisition.
For conservatives, it is his revealing his pro-abortion politics and signaling being a pro-abortion head of the executive branch.
Example two is his pro-gay marriage positioning and his declaration of opposition to conservatism, I noticed that you ignored the gay agenda, are you yourself one of those libertarians?
After joining Obama in opposing DOMA, Rand speaks out on gay marriage and all social conservatism.
“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.”
How far left are you?
I am not a religious conservative if that is your question. I am a conservative and see that you are not. That’s okay. To each his own view but you need to state things clearly. Your opposition to Rand Paul is that he is not a religious conservative, not that he is a conservative. Be more exacting in your statements and conversations don’t have to get off on the wrong foot.
You sure have some strange ideas, if you aren’t a social conservative, then you are not conservative, and trying to play a child’s game of pretending that the conservatives are not the conservatives, sounds like the kind of thing that libertarians play at.
Social liberals are liberals, even if they share our conservative economics, if libertarian, then they also lack the third leg of conservatism because they are also weak on defense, like Paul.
Tell that to William Buckley.
There is nothing wrong with socially conservative until it tries to impose its views on me. Then it becomes nothing different than liberals telling free people how to live.
I understand your social views are so strong that you want to tell people how to live and so we disagree.
I stick to my position you are not a conservative, you just have a different social agenda and like a liberal - no different - you want to impose it on me and others and using government to do so.
William Buckley wasn’t pro-abortion and for gay marriage, the issues that you as a radical liberal, label “religious issues”.
Posted on 12/11/2009 5:57:16 PM by Jim Robinson
“”Free Republic is a fringe right-wing Christian fundamentalist site... or so they say... and they might even be right.
We don’t go for any of that godless left-wing big government socialist malarkey. And we do put our faith and trust in God, not government. We are pro-God, pro-Life, pro-Family, pro-Country and pro-Liberty.
We do not believe that government or science knows what’s best for us or our children. We will make our own decisions thank you very much.
Every once in a while some group of posters get together and try to bend Free Republic to their will. Now, we tend to be pretty free-wheeling around here and will take a lot of guff and a lot of obnoxious insults from a lot of people, but eventually a breaking point is reached.
For example, when a group of RINO lovers recently banded together to try to force FR to accept an abortionist/gay rights RINO as our presidential candidate, they soon found themselves on the outs.””
This is a conservative forum to for conservatives to discuss issues. That includes social conservatives and conservatives.
And Rand Paul is not pro abortion. What in God’s name ever gave you that idea?
I get it. You are a social conservative (and I am a pro life as you are I am guessing).
What I ask is that when you identify yourself on here do it accurately by identifying yourself as a social conservative and not with misleading people by saying you are a conservative. There is a big difference.
Yes, this is a conservative forum, which means fully conservative, all three legs, economic, social, and national defense, social liberals are not conservatives.
You cannot be conservative if you are not a social conservative.
Rand Paul is not a social conservative, he is clearly libertarian, and you keep making it clear that you are not a social conservative as well.
Didn’t you read posts 48 and 51?
Now that should be an interesting discussion. Let's switch to national defense. What is the conservative view on that? I mean, your view.
No, let’s stay on the most direct and simple.
Why are you defending Rand Paul and his position on abortion, gay marriage, social issues in general, and his distancing himself from conservatism by doing so?
We just went through this with Mitt Romney, why go left again?
Is there any doubt we would have been infinitely better off had Romney won. You just made my point.
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.