14 votes

EPJ: Rand Paul vs. Clint Eastwood at the Republican Convention

Here's the difference between when you are intimidated by the neoconservatives and the country club establishment Republicans and when you are not.

Rand Paul: Stuck to Republican establishment approved script.

Clint Eastwood: Paid no attention to approved script, spoke what he believed.

Rand Paul speech comments on Guantanamo:

None.

Clint Eastwood speech comments on Guantanamo (to President Obama):

Well, I know even people in your own party were very disappointed when you didn’t close Gitmo.

Rand Paul speech comments on Iraq and Afghanistan:

None.

Clint Eastwood speech comments on Iraq and Afghanistan (to President Obama):

I know you were against the war in Iraq, and that’s okay. But you thought the war in Afghanistan was OK...you thought that was something worth doing. We didn’t check with the Russians to see how did...there for 10 years.

Rand Paul mention of libertarians: No

Clint Eastwood mention of libertarians: Yes

Here's the link:

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/rand-paul-versu...

Comment viewing options

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

This article cherry-picks

This article cherry-picks points to make Rand's speech look all bad and Clint's speech all good. Neither was the case. Case in point: Clint endorsed keeping Gitmo open. Also, Rand did not stick fully to GOP script. I sincerely doubt Romney asked Rand to say anything about a "fleeting promise of security."

Washington, DC NW

Eastwood is a hero. He is one of us.

Rand Who? is a turncoat, sellout, traitor and a neocon shilling little 4$$#0!3.

That is how they are different.

What is so bizzare about Clints speech

is he was pretending to talk to Obama but everything he said against
Obama are the exact same things Romney supports. This was just crazy.

How did he get away with this? Did he just go off script and because it was live it was too late to edit it?

All I can say is if he planned it this way he is a genius.

According to Karen

According to Karen Kwiatkowski in her article on Lew Rockwell's blog, Eastwood had a preapproved speech that he chucked out once he got onstage. Apparently, he was also only supposed to speak for five minutes, according to some MSM reports, but he spoke for more than ten. Basically, he punked them with the whole thing. There's no way that Romney would have allowed Eastwood to remind the audience that he would be their employee and if he didn't do the job it was up to us to get rid of him. LOL Clint was brilliant, IMO.

Blessings )o(

Be careful, EPJ is a neocon

Be careful, EPJ is a neocon run disinformation site. They are funded by the Rockefeller foundation to agitate.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

You are saying Rob Wenzel is funded by the Rockefeller Fnd?

lol

That's the funniest thing I've heard so far today! Thanks for the chuckles

Totally wrong

One of the most ill informed comments of all time. EPJ is pro-Ron Paul, anti-war, pro-free markets, etc. Robert Wenzel is a Rothbardian. Considering Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, and Robert Murphy, to name just a few libertarians, all highly recommend and support his site, this is just a bizarre comment.

Wenzel, Rockwell, and Murphy

Wenzel, Rockwell, and Murphy are not libertarians, they are anarchists on the NWO payroll to agitate. Their mission is to destroy the pro-liberty movement from within.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

lol

Take a bow, this is high comedy right here. Please, don't stop ... your on a roll ...

Hilarious

Wow! You topped your previous argument in its absurdity. Yes, Lew Rockwell, Robert Murphy, and Robert Wenzel are anarcho-capitalists. So is Tom Woods, Walter Block, Hans Hermann Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella, Jeff Tucker, Thomas Dilorenzo, Laurence Vance, David Kramer, and on and on. They are all libertarians. Libertarianism is a belief in the NAP and Lockean homesteading of property rights (although there are variations on how different libertarians define property rights). There are basically two groups of libertarians, ancaps and minarchists. I consider Gary Johnson and beltway libertarians to be libertarian-lite, at best. It is hard to call them libertarians considering how often they stray from the NAP. To say ancaps are not libertarians exposes your ignorance of what libertarianism is.

Your comments are so far from being rational that it is a waste of time to try to have a discussion, but I did want to respond in case there is someone gullible enough to listen to your preposterous comments.

who pulls YOUR strings?

who pulls YOUR strings? Because I know that Kinsella is working in league with Bill O'Reilly at this time on the 9/11 denier project. You're not supposed to know about that.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Wow!

Paranoid much? Yes, because Kinsella disagrees with you on 9/11 he must be working with Bill O'Reilly for NWO. But since David Kramer doesn't believe the official story and Robert Wenzel is at least sympathetic, if not in agreement, with 9/11 truthers, then that makes your hypothesis pretty shaky. Are all the Austrian economists at LVMI and good friends of Ron Paul's working for the NWO? Please give us more of your bizarre theories. They are funny as hell.

Good find, EAE!

We don't need no stinkin' leader.

<|8{D

It's All true

But Eastwood is not an elected republican, so generally he as more 'freedom'. I'm just making excuses though.

"you're a funny dude, but who gives a fuck about that? I don't care about someone's wit, I care about the courage of their heart and the honesty of their mind."