14 votes

Epic foreign policy interview with Rand Paul explaining his father's positions on the Hugh Hewitt show..

A whole bunch of uneducated neocons commenting on this. They sincerely need an education and some down thumbing. (Please give educated fact based responses and forget the name calling.)

http://www.breitbart.tv/rand-paul-tries-to-explain-ron-pauls...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Unfortunately Brian, neither Johnson nor a Libertarian candidate

has a snowball's chance in hell of winning- and you know that. So what you are saying is that if Paul is not the nominee, by default you are willing to help give Obama another four years to destroy this nation.

Life is not black and white as you seem to think it is.

I guess you dont believe in

I guess you dont believe in principals.... because they are black and white... you apear to be more of a compromiser... I don't like to compromise y principals... So you want me to vote for Rick Perry to try to get out Obama? Like there will be a difference between the two...

I think you must have missed the whole Ron Paul revolution. Its about freedom... Besides Paul and Johnson not one other singe Republican candidate will be different from Obama... they will tell you they will but they wont.. and you may go ahead and believe them.. change -- that you believe in....

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Hey Brian- do you always denigrate people you disagree with?

Or do I just rub you the wrong way?

Let's see, you've called me a fool, a compromiser, and
someone lacking in principals-- all because I don't agree with your decision to throw away your vote if Dr. Paul is not the Republican nominee.

And no, I did not miss the reƎVO˩ution- but I'm beginning to think YOU did. You need to lighten up buddy!

Thats my opinion. You want

Thats my opinion. You want me to say its genius to believe that any of the status quo candidates are really gonna be different from Obama? And yes, you are compromising if you take less of two evils. I dont buy that and never have.

I am confident in my opinion that this is exactly what Ron paul stands for. principals and no compromise. You can disagree. I dont hate you. I just disagree with your positions on this. thats all...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

So you would support Wayne

So you would support Wayne Allen Root or Bob Barr simply because they are the L party nominee?

Absolutely... because at

Absolutely... because at least that party would make a difference...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Come on now Brian, with all their warts and pimples,

any one of the other Republican candidates is at least a little bit better than Obama, don't you think?

Really? Then you really are

Really? Then you really are foolish. To believe that ANY of these people (pick any other candidate besides PAul or Johnson) will make a damn difference, means you still believe in the two-party system, which is a fraud.

That is like believing Obama was gonna be different from Bush.

NO WAY!

But even if you dont buy that argument, the question was did he support ANY of the republicans? his answer was YES before knowing who... that is an ideologue... Sorry, cant support that.. that means he is for party over principal...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Yeah, that was a real

Yeah, that was a real clincher, and no hesitation on his part, either.
I also do not get the "All men are created equal unless they are in the Middle East" thing..it really makes me sick.

Even worse, Rand agreed that

Even worse, Rand agreed that Muslims attack Sweden and Switzerland. WTF?? When did Sweden or Switzerland EVER get attacked by Muslims?

HE just likes to agree. He is WAYYYYY to of a softball for my taste.. Im not sure why so many people here are so excited about him. Just because he is the son of Ron doesn't mean I will support him.

You'll never see Paul pander on his positions..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

There have been a couple

There have been a couple terror plots in Sweden over the years (I believe at least one of them was motivated by a cartoon by a Swede that depicted Muhammad), don't know about Switzerland. Ron Paul has never said that there would never be any terror plots against us if we pursued his foreign policy, just that there would be fewer and would have less support in the Muslim world. There will always be a few crazies, whether they're Muslims, or their Anders Breivik, Tim McVeigh, Ted Kacinzsky, Andrew Stack, James Von Brunn, the Discover channel guy, etc. But countries like Sweden and Switzerland are the subject of far fewer plots than the US, UK, and other countries that have been at the forefront of Middle East interventionism. Countries like Russia and China have lots of terror attacks because of their oppression of the Chechnyans and the Uyghurs.

I thought Rand said some good things, but I think he should have been more firm on the assassination. Awlaki was not on a battlefield and didn't pose any more of an imminent threat to anyone than any person plotting a murder in the US does. There's no reason he couldn't have been arrested. Also, it doesn't matter where he was or whether or not he was a citizen. The fifth amendment applies to all people.

Yeah but that ONE attack in

Yeah but that ONE attack in Sweden was over the anger, as you pointed out, the cartoon of Muhammad. It has nothing to do with free and prosper, which was the point Rand was making on behalf of his father.

I just think Rand panders way too much and is not firm in his beliefs.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I've found that whenever

I've found that whenever neocons are confronted about the "free and prosperous" myth, they generally argue that they attack us cause we're not Muslim. Even in the Sweden case, though, that isn't true (he was not justified in killing people because of a cartoon, but he didn't kill them simply because they weren't Muslim). I think Rand tries harder than his dad to both appeal to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, and I agree that at times it results in him seeming unsure in his beliefs. I did like how he emphasized how Ron has never justified terror attacks.

"I have repeatedly urged that the RNC ban him [Ron Paul]" - Hugh

From this interview:

"I have repeatedly urged that the RNC ban him [Ron Paul] from the debates." - Hugh Hewitt, 13:10

Hugh Hewitt
http://www.healthreformscam.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/h...

Hewitt - Running on Empty
http://files.fraterslibertas.com/Images/Hugh/Runnin2.jpg

http://files.fraterslibertas.com/Images/Hugh/Caption%20Hugh.htm

ytc's picture

Yeah, it IS disgusting to hear HH belittle Ron P in so many

ways.

BUT, Rand stood up beautifully for Ron. He mentioned how the entire GOP debate is healthily influenced by Ron's steadfast stance on Fed Res, Afghan war etc.

Rand also firmly held onto the multi-factorial aspects of 9-11 and AlQ motivations rather than give into HH's simplistic anti-islam assertions.

I admire Rand for his willingness to appear on HH's show. He needs to be heard by HH (war-mongers) crowd.

The media wouldn't help if they could & couldn't help if they wo

The media wouldn't help if they could & couldn't help if they would.

Free includes debt-free!

Suggestions for Commenting

I concur with the giving the fact-based responses. I would advocate just putting a ton of facts out there that they have no talking points for, this might cause them to stop a think for a minute.

What you see over there is classic Pavlovian reactions. These people need a drive-by history lesson.

Suggestions:
quotes from War is a Racket
the stats on the CIA op of your choice.
quotes from authorities that they haven't been desensitized to (like Michael Shaurer) perhaps John Stockwell
expose the Gulf of Tonkin with direct quotes

I got the last word in the comments on one site using this approach. These poor people must be liberated from their ignorance.

Yuck

I guess I do not consent to the Al-Queda horsesh!t, manufactured for mass consumption. What do I know first hand, second hand, third hand? I hear the nightly news or of questionable scholarship touted without question.

So he is touting a book written about a man imprisoned and tortured for years that wrote his anger of abuse into his opinions. Is the task of intellectuals to analyze someone else's potential to sin? It's a sin to talk about sinning?

I have no reason to believe that Muslim scholars are intellectually bankrupt, in general.

What worries me is that some on both sides are looking for a fight. Like two angry old men who should know better but don't.

Free includes debt-free!

Nice Interview

@

"It does not take a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

--Samuel Adams

Not to be in your face.... but...

I did not think it was a nice interview. Hewitt was rude and confrontational.

This interview also strengthened why I like Ron so much. While I see the merit in the way Rand couches his belief system in "reasonable" language... I like straightforward people that much more.