80 votes

YouTube Update: Rand Paul on CNN Discussing Romney Foreign Policy

Video thanks to DPer kytyedye and the great MOX News:



RT @NeelCNN: Tonight @OutFrontCNN 7p ET @SenRandPaul on calling out Romney on Middle East, defense spending... http://on.cnn.com/OUr9lI

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

you can search the history

you can search the history books, and you won't find another US Senator who pulled a move like this. Rand is the master of Romney's mind.

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

Go Rand!

I'm glad to see this.

Rand, more of this please.

Less playing nice with establishment... Thanks.

Related: "Brother Winston" is an Op-Obviously so

Best to just DV into oblivion and not engage. Then the Op that is now BW can resurface w/ a different user name.

"You are a den of vipers and thieves."

I mean to rout you out!

-Just because you are among us, does not make you with us

-The door is wide open, anything can slither in


This is a GREAT comment. They always say you KNOW you're over target when the anti-aircraft defenses come!

Yes, this is TEXTBOOK Establishment behavior. Direct engagement NEVER succeeds for them. EVER. So to avoid being exposed, Establishment folk (as I've noted below) will smear or discredit the character or intentions of their target, in attempt to weaken their points. Nothing unusual - basic Alinsky stuff. Sometimes the propagandist will attempt to PREEMPT my comments by "warning" the flock to "pay no attention" - a transparently desperate move.

By contrast, I ENCOURAGE people to engage. I am Winston Smith today. I will be Winston Smith tomorrow. I will never "resurface" as ANYTHING BUT Winston Smith. If Winston Smith is booted, so be it.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

You are devisive and uncharitable

Even I have given props where props have been due to people I do not like in the liberty movement (like Adam for instance even if he did some things against me, in Christian faith I must love and forgive him but that also allows me to enjoy his less controversial videos still). Maybe if you were a bit more rational and consistent with your Rand criticism you would be listened too.

You have dug your own grave. I finally had to call you out, but apparently most people agree with me. We gave you ample time to get out your Rand hate. Now, people see what you really are.

May the LORD bless you and keep you
May the LORD make His face shed light upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up His face unto you and give you peace
Follow me on Twitter @ http://twitter.com/Burning_Sirius

I truly believe Rand's

I truly believe Rand's allegiance is with his father. He's just playing a different ball game. He's incrementally winning the minds of the more deeply brainwashed. It's not easy for some to wake up!

I know a lot of older Republicans who have respect for Rand. If he didn't play ball and endorse Romney, they would have written him off like they have his father.

Rand's strategy is simple. He agrees with the Establishment types, gains favorable press, gets noticed by more Republicans in general, then disagrees with the Establishment (not too much, but just a little). He wakes up a few people without gaining too many enemies or turning the Establishment totally against him. He then repeats the process.

Rand is on our side.

We need to be mindful of those here trying to discredit Rand and wonder whose side they are really on...


1. They will always FALSELY try to meld Ron and Rand together as one... a "team" working with the "redeemable" LEFTIST GOP.

2. They will position "playing ball" (SELLING OUT) as a wiser decision when compared to purity. They will cite FALSE benefits (Boomer love) for doing so.

3. They will BIZARRELY characterize the GOP as this band of bungling idiots who are allowing this "Rand trap" to be stealthily placed around them, rendering them helpless as it tightens. A LAUGHABLE CONCEPT, given the primary and Tampa.

4. They will attempt to shave off the few purists who REJECT the sellout strategy as "kooks" or "crazy" or "liberal operatives." SOUND FAMILIAR?!?!?!?! Same thing during the primary - the ol' "If you ain't for Romney, you MUST BE FOR OBAMA!" They will smear their target's intentions with lines like "We need to be mindful of those (insert accusation)." This particular tactic has a real creepy KGB feel to it and is THE KEY... THE KEY to a successful co-opting - eliminate the dissenters! Does everyone here know what a "Ron Paul Ragamuffin" is? YOU SHOULD!!!!!!!!

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

You're wrong on your first point

During the campaign Ron decided not to attack Romney mainly to facilitate what Rand is currently doing. So yes they are working as a "team". Like it or not. Your other points are typical divisive Rand hating rhetoric. Why don't you chill out and let Rand do his thing? Are there not at least 90 senators who are voting for all of the corrupt evil government initiatives? Why don't you bitch and complain about that for a change?


5. Take note of screen names. During the GOP's Tea Party co-opting, the FAKE-TEA GOPers facilitating the co-opting had screen names like "Tea4Ever" or "TeaPartyOrDie" or "TeaPartyRadical." I came to realize the people shouting "Tea" the loudest... WERE THE CO-OPTERS! Same is holding true during the GOP's Ron Paul Liberty Movement co-opting we are experiencing right now.

6. They will attempt to smear the "leader" of the targeted movement with rumors and gossip. This is done so as to weaken and easily "replace" them with the fake co-opting leaders. The tea party was a great example. Ron Paul (the grandfather of the movement) was CONSTANTLY REJECTED AS SUCH by the co-opters (Tea Party Express, Freedomworks)... while FAKE-TEA GOPers like Sarah Palin assumed that position. They achieve this by repeating things like "Ron Paul was partnered with Mitt Romney" or "Ron Paul was funded by stormfront" or anything else his supporters would find repugnant. Sort of a Tokyo Rose tactic.

7. They will use the word "hate" often. TOO often. The left (including Establishment co-opters) actually burned-out that word way back in the 20th Century... but STILL use it to smear their targets and chill truth. This is actually a good thing, as it becomes sort of a calling card of the co-opter, makes them really visible.

8. Co-opters will always attempt to muffle dissent by trying to convince their target that criticisms and efforts are better spent elsewhere. Typically to something that ALREADY has 24/7 criticism anyway - democrats or fall guy "rinos."

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.


You are either a troll or just stupid

I'm suprised Rand is still

I'm suprised Rand is still getting hate. To the anti-randers: would you rather have Rand in the Senate or not? If not, please elaborate how the other Senators are more pro-liberty than Rand. If so, please tell me why you continue to beat the dead horse known as the Romney endorsement?

don't even care.. there are a bunch of talkers in the movement

most of whom are behind johnson now

people like bob-45 actually bashed rand for what he perceived as neo-conish foreign policy agenda but turned around and said johnson who thinks we should maintain military presence in middle east after pulling back from afghan is perfectly ok

brain dead boomers through and through

or is it just spineless?

Absolutely. Rand is not his

Absolutely. Rand is not his father, but he is still the most conservative (i.e. limited government) Senator in office. This energy would be better used say towards unseating someone like Lindsay Graham or Harry Reid.


seating Constitution Party people and Libertarian Party people.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Great Interview

Too bad they were just looking for controversy and not intelligent discussion.

Rand is okay (better than okay, compared to the rest of the Senate). He's a different personality than his Dad, but that gives him an appeal to more people. I believe the differences are mostly superficial and not on principle.

He knows way more about politics, history, and geography than most of the candidates for president, having been his father's son for decades. Economics, too.

If he were spineless or ambitious, he would have (figuratively) changed his name before running.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

Thank You Sen Paul

Very Good!

Rand is redeemed!

Now this is the kind of Paulian leadership I was hoping for from Rand. His powerful and perfectly timed critique of Romney's monstrous foreign policy makes his ill-timed endorsement worthwhile, since his criticism now has more bite and media pull than it would have otherwise had. I still disagree with the timing and manner of his endorsement and the lack of concessions demanded from Romney for it, but we see now that Rand did not completely emasculate himself by his endorsement! Quite the contrary.

The liberty movement still has a Senator (and a promising presidential candidate in 2016)!

Textbook ESTABLISHMENT GOPropaganda.

Notice the DECEPTIVE word "Paulian." It's designed to FALSELY hitch Ron and Rand together, as if they are the same.

Notice the words "ill-timed endorsement." They are designed to soften the DISGUSTING sellout (his own father to Sean Hannity) by positioning it as some sort of unfortunate accident. It's clumsy propaganda, as it seems to insinuate that there could be a... WELL "timed" endorsement of a LEFTIST, PROGRESSIVE, CHICKENHAWK.

Notice the sentence "criticism now has more bite and media pull than it would have otherwise had." This is an absolute lie. His "pull," voice and attention were EXACTLY THE SAME, before his treacherous sellout to the Establishment.

Notice the phrase "I still disagree with..." This is CLASSIC ESTABLISHMENT BS. It's designed to make the propagandist seem more credible... more clear-minded and rational. It's ALWAYS ATTACHED TO A "but." It's the EXACT SAME TECHNIQUE as the "I agree with Ron Paul... but (insert insults and lies)" that was used during the primary.

Notice the "but we see now that Rand did not completely emasculate himself by his endorsement! Quite the contrary." This is just damn insulting. This propaganda line is on the level of the Jedi Mind Trick that you would use on children. HE HAS NOT "REDEEMED" HIMSELF AND HAS DONE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO HIS CAREER AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT AND TEA PARTY THAT BACKED HIM!

Notice the TRUE MOTIVE BEHIND THE PROPAGANDA: "The liberty movement still has a Senator (and a promising presidential candidate in 2016)!" 1. USE RAND AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN THE ESTABLISHMENT GOP and the Liberty Movement. THIS IS THE CO-OPTING!!!!!!!!!!!!! JUST LIKE THE TEA PARTY!!!! AGAIN... **ALERT, ALERT*** THIS IS THE GOP CO-OPTING!!!!!!!!!! 2. Position him as 2016 contender. Personally, I WILL NEVER, EVER, EVER vote for Rand, as he has proven himself a LIAR! He either supports Liberty, and LIED ABOUT IT with his UNFORGIVABLE ENDORSEMENT... or he supports the Establishment, AND LIED ABOUT IT by hooking up with the Liberty Movement. YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH!!!!!

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

What on earth?

This is the craziest reply I've ever gotten on DP.

If you were familiar with my posting history, you'd know I am absolutely NOT a GOP propagandist in any sense. I have been among those most critical of Rand's endorsement of Romney. Here's a sampling of my past posts for your edification:





My heart doesn't want to agree, but my mind tells me that what

you are saying is truth.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html

Your heart is right.

See my reply to Brother Winston above.


You've got some real issues here man. Unless you're Rand's ex-wife, I just don't see where this is coming from. You troll ANY Rand positive thread insulting anyone and everything about it.

No more tears

Quit crying and trolling man. You just look like an idiot in all of these posts. Not to mention your absurd use of the Caps Lock function on the keyboard. Give it a rest. Have a beer. Maybe go find a girlfriend. I don't know exactly what you need to relax, but find some of it. You're well beyond the logical reasoning stage and standing in full on frothing at the mouth delusional psychotic territory.

Eric Hoffer

He doesn't look like an idiot to me. He is pointing out

uncomfortable FACTS! If Rand is a man of God and has a secret strategy that he feels God is pleased with, then he won't get offended at our skepticism. He will know this comes with the territory.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html


You must be reading different things than I'm reading, or perhaps you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Your premise is absurd. "If the person knows God loves them and is a true believer, it's just fine to sacrifice them on the altar!"

Winston here isn't bringing up facts or adding to the discussion, he's just lambasting anyone that supports anything Rand does and trying to downplay any good done. This isn't fact based anything, it's just mindless lashing out from an emotional infant.

Eric Hoffer

Really???????? Noone is being sacrificed here. Pointing out

someone's wrongdoing is hardly sacrificing them. You are good at propaganda though, I'll give you that.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html


So it was a reading comprehension issue after all.

"If Rand is a man of God and has a secret strategy that he feels God is pleased with, then he won't get offended at our skepticism."

That's you justifying the attacks that Winston is going into not on Rand, but on anyone who supports or acknowledges anything Rand does as good. The argument you use is that it is ok to engage in this sort of gross vilification without reflection because if you're wrong, it's no big deal, as Rand has God.

It's the equivalent of saying, "Just because Jesus was thrice denied, it's not a big deal because God took him into his loving arms anyways."

Skepticism is fine. Malevolent witch hunting is not. Skepticism is posting well reasoned and thoughtful calls for reflection on Rand's past actions. Winston has engaged in none of that. What he has engaged on is nothing less than an all out assault on anyone who supports anything Rand does.

I know it's hard to read, but did you actually read what he was saying in what he was writing? He's not even attacking Rand directly, he's attacking the poster who is supporting Rand on this action. He has yet to answer my single logical point, in this or NUMEROUS other threads.

"If you hate Rand this much for endorsing Romney who you do not support and who is an evil man, do you also hate Ron Paul for endorsing and supporting Gingrich and Boehner for the Speaker of the House position? If not, why is it ok to vilify one person for an endorsement and not ok to vilify another?"

It's a simple logical question.

Eric Hoffer

Malevolent witchhunting? Like I said, you're good at propaganda.

I like what Rand said here-I'll admit. My problem is with the fact that politicians SAY a lot of things I like. They usually lie repeatedly though. You cannot deal with a liar. I'd rather someone come right out and say, "I hate America", then for someone to say, "I love America" whilst secretly hating it. Kinda like when God said he'd rather us be hot or cold than lukewarm.

I don't hate Ron Paul or Rand Paul, but I say we've been deceived, and we might as well be honest with ourselves so it doesn't happen again. Telling someone the truth is not HATE.

And if it weren't the truth, why do folks like yourself get so offended? If someone told me I was going to hell for eating beets, I would not get offended and try to justify my eating of beets--I would laugh and ask them where they got such a silly idea.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html


I don't hate Ron Paul or Rand Paul, but I say we've been deceived, and we might as well be honest with ourselves so it doesn't happen again. Telling someone the truth is not HATE.

Sure, in and of itself, but you can certainly use the truth for hateful reasons, can you not? For instance, using grossly distorted facts, or using facts out of context? How about using a set of facts to justify a non-related action?

That's what is being done here. I don't like seeing people vilified. I don't like seeing people attack liberty supporters for supporting a candidate, and generally I don't like people who use the caps lock key for every other word. I especially don't like these things when they're being done in an intimidating fashion based on a personal ax to grind.

And if it weren't the truth, why do folks like yourself get so offended?

Because the truth matters, and distorting it is wrong. Claiming to know things you only have conjecture on is wrong. Doing so to try and tear people down is wrong. If nothing is ever good enough, nothing gets done and no one can prove themselves. Actions must be taken in context or they won't be understood.

Now I'm actually slightly confused as to the first sentence there. Try switching the meaning around. If it were the truth, why do folks get so offended? It doesn't follow. Something being true or untrue doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not someone gets offended. You can be offended by things that aren't true just as easily as by things that are true.

If someone told me I was going to hell for eating beets, I would not get offended and try to justify my eating of beets--I would laugh and ask them where they got such a silly idea.

Lets make the beat idea simpler. What if the person told you beets could poison you and destroy your health unless they were cooked in a certain way? That new evidence has linked beets to cancer rates over time? What if other people saw the research and agreed with it and stopped eating beets. However, when you look at the research, you see a flaw immediately and that beets are healthy if not disgusting (which they are). Do you just quietly eat beets and smirk to yourself? Do you try and show people the flaw in the reasoning?

I've asked a very simple question:

If you hate and do not support Rand Paul or feel that vilifying his supporters is ok based on his endorsement of Romney, do you also feel the same would be ok if done to Ron Paul based on his prior endorsements of Gingrich and Boehner?

Eric Hoffer

"You can be offended by

"You can be offended by things that aren't true just as easily as by things that are true."

From what I've seen, people get offended by a statement only when they think there is some slight possibility that they are wrong. The point being that if they THINK what you are saying is true, but they don't want to conform their lives to it, they get angry.

"Do you try and show people the flaw in the reasoning?"

Yes you should as I. I think that is precisely what Winston and you are doing. I happen to believe Winston has a better case. Rand has not apologized for what he did, so until then, I have to conclude he is just another politician.

And to answer your last question. Yes Ron Paul and his supporters should be held to the exact same standards as Rand and his. If Ron endorsed someone and then regretted and apologized, and proved he was sincere by not doing the same over and over again, he could be trusted. If not, then no, we shouldn't support the man.

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html