Posted on 04/19/2015 2:40:55 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
“The difference is purely in implementation. If you had a philosophical discussion on what the world should look like, there would be no difference.”
(AUDIO-AT-LINK)
Rand Paul’s brother says that when it comes to ideology, there’s “no difference” between his brother, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate, and his father, the former congressman and three-time presidential candidate.
Ronnie Paul, the eldest son of the former congressman and sometimes-surrogate for his brother, was speaking with libertarian podcaster Israel Anderson. He said that both his brother and father held the same beliefs, there’s just a difference in the implementation of how to get there.
“The difference is purely in implementation,” Paul’s eldest son said. “If you had a philosophical discussion on what the world should look like, there would be no difference.”
As he runs for president, Rand Paul faces the task of both appealing to a broader set of mainstream Republican primary voters, while maintaining enough credibility with the vast Paul family libertarian network to get those people to the polls in early states.
Over the last year, he has sharpened his rhetoric on defense and terrorism. He signed Sen. Tom Cotton’s letter about a potential Iran nuclear deal and recently proposed increasing defense spending, though the increase was offset by other cuts. Last summer, he supported intervention against ISIS, and said, in his presidential announcement speech, “the enemy is radical Islam, you can’t get around it.” When he was a surrogate for his dad in 2007 and 2008 the Kentucky senator often spoke of American interventionism as a cause of terrorism and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
“Basically, if we’re both going the same place you may have a favorite way to get there and I may have a little different way to get there. We both are going to the same place and I can’t even say that your way maybe is better than my way, you know, we can debate all day long which way is the best way,” said Ronnie Paul in the recent interview.
“So they’ve taken different paths. Do you take little pieces at a time, do you try for the whole thing at one time? You know, there’s all different debate on how do you get to ultimately limited government, a pro-American defense foreign policy and Bill of rights, individual liberties for the people at home.”
Ronnie Paul added in a philosophical discussion on ideology there “would be no difference” between his dad and brother and “the end goal without a doubt is the same.”
“I mean, the goal is the same and I’d be willing to wager we could get everybody who listens to this and we can agree on the vision we’re going to and we’d probably have, if we had 100 people in the room we could have 100 different paths. The path is a little different; the end goal without a doubt is the same.”
“The difference is purely in implementation. If you had a philosophical discussion on what the world should look like, there would be no difference.”
During the 2008 campaign, I could’nt stand Ron Paul. When our national debt was 7 Trillion (before Obummer) it was a stupid policy to avoid wars in middle east.
Now national debt is approaching $19 Trillion and will be $22 Trillion by the time Obummer leaver office. We owe Japan, China and other foreigners $7 Trillion debt, give or take. I do not see the wisdom of protecting oil flow to China and Japan from the middle-east with borrowed money from China & Japan. Bankrupt super powers are best advised to stop foreign military & nation building missions. If we get our debt under control, and stop mortgaging our children’s future, only then we can carry on foreign missions.
LOL
agree with some of that. Where I draw the line is terrorism. we can’t allow terrorists like ISIS and extremist muslims to just take over countries and take over the world. Coalitions should do the work and not just US. In fact had a coalition started last June they could have easily dispensed with ISIS when they were marching in the desert. actually aerial bombardment would have done a lot of the work early on. so I am not an isolationist but we have to pick our battles and thus far we are not doing too good post-WW II.
Our Founding Fathers were libertarian. That is where I got the idea long before I heard the word libertarian.
From Wikipedia:
The term libertarianism refers to a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be
free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid harming others by abusing their
liberty.
Doesn't that sound like the Golden Rule applied to Adults? "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
Do you want to tell me we are not the absolute owners of our lives? Do you want to tell me that I should not be free to own my property?
I'm not at all out of line with the values of this forum. Look at these words from the Republican Liberty Caucus.
Liberty Compact — A Candidate's Pledge:
The Liberty Compact is a written pledge inspired by the words of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) in his book, "Conscience of a Conservative,"
which promotes the belief that government isn't the solution, but all too often, the problem. The pledge reads as follows:
"I, (insert name), pledge to the citizens of the State of (insert state) and to the American people, that as their elected representative I will work to:
Restore liberty, not restrict it; shrink government, not expand it; reduce taxes, not raise them; abolish programs, not create them; promote the
freedom and independence of citizens, not the interference of government in their lives; and observe the limited, enumerated powers of our Constitution,
not ignore them."
In 1964, Barry Goldwater was the political founder of our modern day Conservative movement when he wrested control of the Republican Party from the
liberal Rockefeller Republicans and paved the way for every Republican President since. Being "small ell" libertarian is the heartbeat of Conservatism.
Ping
I wish Darin LaThug’s brother would come out and say this. Of course, the shameless LaThug cheerleading conservatives would probably STILL claim he’s “more conservative” than his traitor daddy.
One plank states, "let peaceful persons cross borders peacefully" which seems fair, yet any thinking individual will realize that it is impossible to know which border crosser will be peaceful or not. The national Libertarian Party platform that Rand Paul was raised on is paved with numerous arbitrary or duplicitous conditions. One major tenet of the LP is "non-initiation of force" which holds that force must never be used unless it is to respond to force already used against you. This also seems fair, but caused a schism among LP members when some viewed the horrific attack on 9/11 by Islam as initiation of force (thus requiring a principled libertarian response), and others that thought the use of force by Islam was retaliation for transgressions against them by the the US.
The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971, and I have finally understood that the LP platform with its intentionally obscure phrasing exists by pulling dissatisfied individuals from both the Democrats and Republicans. The faithful adherents to the LP can spin every position to the left or to the right depending on the orientation of the target audience. Rand Paul is a master at this deception.
The Libertarian Party long ago evolved into a big business. There are many groups that will teach individuals how to speak to others in LP doublespeak to advance their goals.
Here is an example of the promo for an "Advocates for Self-Government" LP seminar from a few years ago:
Give Rand Paul credit for revealing that he isn’t so prolife and in fact is pro-choice?
What he calls “”In general, I am pro-life””
“The thing is about abortion—and about a lot of things—is that I think people get tied up in all these details of, sort of, you’re this or this or that, or you’re hard and fast (on) one thing or the other,” Paul told Elliott. “I’ve supported both bills with and without (exceptions), you know. In general, I am pro-life.
Goldwater was followed by Nixon and Ford, Goldwater didn’t change the party.
The founding fathers were conservatives, not libertarians.
The European left had not even started libertarianism yet.
Libertarians would have been lynched in 1790, calling for abortion and gay marriage and pornography and hookers and so on.
It appeals to me and I am pretty darned conservative.
Yes, fighting terrorism is much different than invading countries like Iraq or Iran. I am 1000% for expanding special ops to kill or capture terrorist groups. Capturing them is better than droning them, for the simple reason droning demolishes any chance of gathering intelligence on future plots. Those type of efforts do not drain the treasury anything like full scale military invasions.
As for ISIS, I would much rather prefer soldiers of neighboring countries shedding blood instead of American blood. It is disgraceful that Pesh Murga is not being given tools to fight ISIS.
Let this be a lesson to us all.
Any sibling we may have p.o.d in our childhood can, and will return in our adulthood and try to sink our run for president.
I’ve been wondering where Ronnie was. Haven’t seen him since college. I bet his brother is none too happy with him today.
Rand has worked hard to tone his message. This will set him back if it gets picked up widely.
Really, you are left wing on social issues and immigration and national defense?
Mitt Romney, big government Republican. Rand Paul, not so much. Only thing that connects them is presidential aspiration. Nice try though.
That sounds great if life was like movies, all we have to do is send our magic ninjas in everywhere and somehow we have that capability to not only deliver them everywhere, but they all come back alive rather than us losing team, after team, after team, because someone watches too much Hollywood
Actually Rand Paul was a Romney man and they are similar in lying and pretending and flip-flopping, and Rand Paul is also a social liberal.
“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”
“A week after about 150 tea party activists rallied in opposition to U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander’s re-election” “Rand Paul of Kentucky said here Monday that he hopes Alexander doesn’t get an opponent and wins re-election.”
You are describing liberal thought, not libertarian. I an libertarian in that I believe in laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights. Unlike many libertarians I am a strong nationalist. I an also against abortion, gay marriage, uncontrolled prostitution and pornography.
Having said that, I also know the "War on Drugs" is a total failure! Beyond that, after all efforts for over 40 years against drug use, our children are drugged at the recommendation of our school systems which is barbarous. My libertarian beliefs are vehemently against the evil of Socialism. The Department of Education has no basis in The US Constitution.
Whether you like it or not, our founders were not Conservatives. If they had been we would still be deferring to Her Majesty and speaking the Queens English.
Jefferson wrote that a number of authors exerted a general influence on the words of the Declaration. The English political theorist John Locke, whom Jefferson called one of "the three greatest men that have ever lived", is usually cited as one of the primary influences. John Locke was the foremost classical liberal philosopher. Libertarianism is the modern form of classical liberalism. Thomas Jefferson adopted many of the ideals of classical liberalism but, in the Declaration of Independence, changed Locke's "life, liberty, and property" to the more socially liberal "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
"A second stream of thought growing in significance was the classical liberalism of John Locke, including his theory of the "social contract". This had a great influence on the revolution as it implied the inborn right of the people to overthrow their leaders should those leaders betray the agreements implicit in the sovereign-follower relationship." — Wikipedia®
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.