Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rand Paul in Israel
#1
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitic...?id=299363

This smells quite a lot like a preparation for 2016, thus placing it into US Politics. His statements about the foreign policy issues are interesting and in fact look perfectly fine to me. Check the comments at the end of the article too.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#2
Here's the thing with Paul.

He says it is not our business because he does not intend to continue funding foreign affairs as we have since WWII, so it isn't our business from that isolationist perspective.


That's what Israeli Jews need to know. Rand is hostile to US foreign policy since WWII and is pretty honest about it. Israel would receive nothing like Egypt if Rand has his way.

He's the closest thing to an isolationist since Robert Taft with any chance of becoming our POTUS. I like the guy myself ,but, everyone needs to know what he is about. He'd stop sending 1 cent to foreign states, Israel included.

Nothing anyone does would be our concern outside of invading us or taking our people hostage like the barbary pirates.
Reply
#3
That is not isolationist. If it was he would be preaching what Patrick Buchanan was doing. Buchanan is all for protectionism, and if that isn't isolationist,............

Paul is for Free Trade, and doing business with the world. He just wants us to keep our noses out of other's business.

You have some fine neighbors, don't you? Do they stick their noses into your business? I'll bet you if they did they wouldn't be fine neighbors any longer. Am I correct?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#4
Rand Paul is in Israel to appease the Jewish lobby in American politics. No one gets anywhere without making the pilgrimage to Israel at some point in their careers. I have to admire him for walking the fine tight rope of a line between appeasing the War Party, Jewish lobbyists and other interests, and sticking with cutting foreign funding.
Reply
#5
Tell you what, if he indeed does run for president next time around, he has my vote in a New Yawk minute.

He's a chip off the old block, yet younger and more polished.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#6
Yeap. I admired Paul, but I wasn't a full time total supporter of him. His son looks a lot more promising and relevant.
Reply
#7
If he was balancing he did a perfect job.

Yes, if he runs he probably has my vote.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#8
John,

When I use the term, it only means we would return to pre WWII foreign affairs. Has no trade connotations at all with me. I agree Rand is a free trader type. He also in his perfect world would have a strong Navy even though intervention would be his last resort move.
Reply
#9
(01-13-2013, 09:33 AM)Palladin Wrote: John,

When I use the term, it only means we would return to pre WWII foreign affairs. Has no trade connotations at all with me. I agree Rand is a free trader type. He also in his perfect world would have a strong Navy even though intervention would be his last resort move.

And that is exactly what the Founders intended for us to do too. And their advice is well founded, after having experienced the Brits go about their affairs.

This is why most of the radicals have been Leftists of late. They constantly want change away from what they view as bad. Couple all that with this adolescent mentality, and you have a sure fire recipe for disaster.

Fortunately, there are now an almost equal amount of radicals, on the Right, who want us to return to what has been tested and proven to work over the decades. I consider myself a radical from the Right as well. I want desperately to get back on track. And I am willing to get out and help make it possible. So I proudly use the title of Right Radical, just like both Pauls.

The son is smoother because he has learned from his father. I'll bet you they discuss strategy on a regular ongoing basis. And the son is not interested in being president for all the wrong reasons, like most president of late. In fact, I'll bet you he fears it. But someone with real insight needs to do it, and he is perhaps best capable to see where we need to go.

Unfortunately, he is up for reelection in 2016, and the state of Kentucky does not allow a politician run for two offices at once. He will have to decide if he really wants to take such a chance. So watch him closely for the next two or three years and see how he progresses. If the economy really does tank, and he keeps increasing his stature, most likely he will run. If not, he will almost certainly run for reelection.

One thing about the son. He's like his father basically. What you see is what you get. Rubio and others can be chameleons, moving with the wind. But the son is well grounded on what he knows we need to have happen if we are going to regain our feet. I'm personally hanging my hat on him. He's honest, charitable, and I'd be completely surprised if he were not of sound character. Bubba, or Junior, he ain't.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#10
John,

I doubt he can be elected to POTUS. He's an isolationist, we're not going to lose our Roman Empire mentality w/o major suffering.

I think so long as the US dollar remains the global reserve, we're not going to suffer enough. We have to have a massive setback economically or take a huge hit in blood to cause that big a change in thinking, IMO.
Reply
#11
(01-13-2013, 03:52 PM)Palladin Wrote: John,

I doubt he can be elected to POTUS. He's an isolationist, we're not going to lose our Roman Empire mentality w/o major suffering.

I think so long as the US dollar remains the global reserve, we're not going to suffer enough. We have to have a massive setback economically or take a huge hit in blood to cause that big a change in thinking, IMO.

I disagree here. I can remember when almost everything his daddy espoused was cursed by practically everyone, including Dumbasses. Slowly, reality has caused most of us to reconsider, and now the only bone of contention is this "Policeman of the World" mentality. Just look at how Georgie-Porgie raised hell before stomping off, and all over Ron Paul.

But I guarantee you by the next election in 2014 this is going to change. Hey, We're Broke! We can't afford this shit. Even Beck now knows this. Hannity and Rush are still hold outs, but you mark my word. Even they are going to embrace this hands-off approach, because its too costly, and we can't afford it. We cannot afford to have our nose up everyone's ass, and our fingers in everyone's pockets any longer.

Acting globally in the name of trade is fine. That's how wealth is created for all sides who participate. But economic power and police power are two different things. If someone else wants to be global policeman, let them waste their time and resources trying the impossible dream.

Reality can be akin to a 2 x 4 upside the head, and it is past time for this to wake up even the die-hards.

Isolationism my rear end. What it really is is common sense.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#12
John,

Seeing how the GOP elected Romney, I don't see evidence there are suddenly tons of new yanks who wish we'd cut back entitlements and reduce the state's size and peacefully end our post WWII role.

Where's the evidence for this intellectual movement?
Reply
#13
(01-13-2013, 04:44 PM)Palladin Wrote: John,

Seeing how the GOP elected Romney, I don't see evidence there are suddenly tons of new yanks who wish we'd cut back entitlements and reduce the state's size and peacefully end our post WWII role.

Where's the evidence for this intellectual movement?

Patrick, it is being heavily influenced by the big government elitists within the party. Didn't you see the latest set of procedural rules passed by the 'so called' delegates at the last GOP convention? If you control the leadership in DC, and have a 51% control of delegates writing the party platform, the rest is just gravy.

Do you honest believe the majority of the rank and file wanted McDoofus in 2006? And do you think Romney could have won if the party rightists had not beaten each other's candidate up so badly.

I'm almost positive Herman Cain would have won the nomination had he not been smeared by the elite leadership, including Romney. That was not an accident.

The overwhelming majority of the rank and file are very angry, disgusted, but unorganized. And that is exactly where the party elites want them to remain. Hey, if they don't control the WH, at least they still get to be on the "in" circuit in DC. And if they control one branch of the legislature they can still be happy.

I'm not one of those conspiracy guys like Alex Jones, but it doesn't take a conspiracy. All it takes sf for them to talk at social events, conference calls, and agree on general steerage. These people love their power and influence far more than they do the 'so called' ideals of the party. They don't really care, as long as their head is in the trough.

G-d damn, I totally despise them. And it behooves all GOP party members to despise them as well, and clean house, or we can kiss our asses goodbye.

You think I am kidding here? I'm as serious as a heart attack. And I don't get this from reading some InfoWars articles, or listening to Michael Savage. I pay attention closely to things, know my history, and especially the history of the GOP. They've been this way since the Teddy Roosevelt days. Only Calvin Coolidge, and his disciple Reagan, were the abberations in the mix.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#14
Quote:They've been this way since the Teddy Roosevelt days. Only Calvin Coolidge, and his disciple Reagan, were the abberations in the mix.

That's an interesting POV... worse yet, a correct one. S13

It also leaves only two choices: pray for a miracle of another aberration or just Whig the entire shiitehole.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#15
(01-13-2013, 06:36 PM)mv Wrote:
Quote:They've been this way since the Teddy Roosevelt days. Only Calvin Coolidge, and his disciple Reagan, were the abberations in the mix.

That's an interesting POV... worse yet, a correct one. S13

It also leaves only two choices: pray for a miracle of another aberration or just Whig the entire shiitehole.

That's my exact recommendation. They aren't worth the effort IMO.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply
#16
John,

I agree Cain may have won the nomination(GOP), but, he may not have,too.

He wasn't as well read as I had hoped and had begun emotional reactions against questioners when pressed, before the female stuff.

Herman was popular for his tax stance though, he hadn't run on huge foreign and domestic policy changes beyond the tax code that I recall personally.
Reply
#17
http://www.facebook.com/RandPaul2010/pos...1849161107

Not gonna pass but makes me like Rand Paul a bit more.
Sanders 2020

Reply
#18
I agree. He's probably about as close to the "ideal candidate" for me as there is in our current paradigm.
Reply
#19
I tend to think of him as a chip off the old block, but just wrapped in a slightly different decorative paper. People who can't seem to go along with the daddy's brutal honesty, will swallow the son's more polished approach. But both will tend to get you to the same destination in the end.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it" - Jonathan Swift, 1710
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Rand Paul Leading The Way John L 4 918 12-16-2012, 08:14 PM
Last Post: WmLambert
  Rand Paul Returns $500k to Taxpayers ghoullio 1 709 01-15-2012, 09:11 PM
Last Post: John L
  Rand Paul's Resolution Voted Down Palladin 11 1,912 04-08-2011, 07:36 AM
Last Post: quadrat
  Why Rand Paul winning is bad for the GOP Anonymous24 34 7,406 10-18-2010, 09:09 PM
Last Post: ghoullio

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)