8 votes

Imporant! Why Rand's Israel Comment Means Nothing!

Rand Paul's comment about construing an attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S. means nothing!

I just realized this. Read it through please. Rand Paul just got done lambasting Senator Kerry about whether a president has the power to unilaterally take military action (go to war) without congressional declaration. Kerry responded by saying what we all know to be true which is past (and present) presidents have certainly done so arguing for whatever reason congressional approval is not expedient enough for the situation.

Rand Paul takes the absolutist position that you don't bend the Constitution when it's convenient. Somehow I believe that coming from him he would stay true to that as president more than a neocon or globalist Democrat.

With that in consideration think of his Israel comment. What would Rand Paul do as president if Israel was attacked? That's the important thing. His position he would have us to believe is absolutely NOTHING without congressional approval. Now, if congress gave that to him then so be it. But obviously that wouldn't happen easily, hence the reason congressional authority is required.

So his Israel comment is PURE POLITICAL theater, and brilliant! His comments are impotent and he knows it. It's no different than Bill Clinton posing for a photo-op in North Korea to get those hostages released awhile ago. It means little to nothing to us in the end!

In other words it could be "construed" as an attack, whatever that means, but it's not an ACTUAL attack on the U.S., and under his libertarian leaning presidency that makes all the difference.

Comment viewing options

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

Gee Whiz, What a Surprise

Another Acolyte of the 'Cult of Rand' (CoR) employs the age old 'don't listen to what he actually says, but, rather, listen to what I tell you he said', trick.

Clearly, Lil' Rand is using Jedi mind-tricks and playing three-dimensional chess, at a level that we mere plebeians cannot understand.

It is truly a blessing that the acolytes of the CoR (Cult of Rand) are around to keep us focused.



"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

Rand Apologists

Please let the senator speak for himself.


You're right. It doesn't matter because he is henceforth politically DEAD.
He has betrayed his fathers movement, which was primarily responsible for getting him in office.
The neocons might be pleased with his behavior - but they will never trust him and rightfully so.
The Christian Zionists are stupid enough to stick with him, but they're toxic for any national office....

Yup, dead.

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

I wish I could disagree

Whether Rand himself is a Christian Zionist aside, that is clearly the demographic he is "playing" to. If it works and sweeps him into office, I guess that is when we will find out if he is one or not. But I am not, and I am not willing to help put someone in the White House that might be. And I am actively trying to keep an open mind about Rand, many are just writing him off already. Ron Paul sort of tossed truthers under the bus in 2008, and he paid for it in 2012 in my state. I think Rand may find he lost more supporters than he gained.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

Rand easily could have said...

and SHOULD have said:

"Any unprovoked attack on a friendly trading partner of the US will be considered a potential threat to the well-being and security of the United States and any party or parties considering such an action should weigh their plans accordingly and cautiously."

Minimally Rand displayed poor judgement of phrasing and ended up giving at least the appearance that he might be pandering or worse that he might actually be a supporter of zionism.

And he was already on shaky ground for his statements about eliminating aid to Israel's enemies first and then only gradually drawing down aid for Israel...

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

It means everything

The Israeli lobby would not so easily let him off the hook .

A very simple explanation for your viewing pleasure .



I agree

I agree that it means nothing in the long game since Rand is inconsequential to that game. He is a distraction to keep the Liberty caucus from finding a champion. Rand is like the NRA, an illusion meant to fool people into thinking that something or someone is out there fighting for them which tends to keep out others. He exists as a trick to fool ignorant people into thinking he is a pro-constitution candidate when in fact he is not.

NOT Rand 2016

Ok, I support and have supported Rand but

what happened to:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
-Thomas Jefferson

An attack on Israel is an attack on Israel not on the United States!

I do think it's just grandstanding on his part (for the evangelical vote) as I don't think Israel would be attacked, therefore I understand what he did there but it really is painful just to hear that.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, an

Rand dips a toe in the neocon

Rand dips a toe in the neocon water and he likes the sound of "President Paul".

The man has ambitions, methinks.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

It's quite unfortunate that

It's quite unfortunate that we are divided on the issue of whether or not Rand is truly with us. We never had to question whose side his father was on! I have yet to make my mind up about Rand - I do see pros and cons to him.
We need more openminded debate on this issue. Maybe a look see at how constitutional his voting record has been. I believe that could clear up this divide very quickly :)


"We" seem to be overwhelmingly appalled by Rand's sellout to neoconservatism, judging by the responses on this forum.... Ain't nothin' wrong with that in my book.

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

I'm also quite unhappy with

I'm also quite unhappy with Rand. The optimist in me has yet to accept he has sold out completely. I'm just disappointed this issue seems to bring about so much distance between people. I will say reading through the comments on these posts really brings me to the conclusion that I shouldn't have too much faith in Rand Paul..

Ron Paul is a living ideal -

Ron Paul is a living ideal - let's hold his message dear and support anyone who does so with us. We don't have the luxury of waiting next 250 years for another Ron Paul to come and save us, lazily dismissing those who aren't as perfect as RP.

Divided we fall.

I'm so grateful there even is Rand and Justin Amash etc.

Liberty movement still grows and it shall prevail through perseverance.

He's play'n on The Grand Chessboard LIKE A BOSS!!


Unfortunately, some don't see

Unfortunately, some don't see that.

So what makes Rand's playing

So what makes Rand's playing of the 'game' different than anyone else we condeem for doing the exact same thing? Talk about being a hypocrite.

Dr. Paul >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rand

The difference is

what they vote "yay" and "nay" for.

I'll give you a good example: compare Lindsey Graham's (R - DoucheBaggery, USA) votes to Rand's. Look at the NDAA votes, all tax-raising legislation, foreign policy votes, etc. etc. etc.

I only disagree with what you're saying because I don't believe you've researched everything Rand has ever voted on.

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Rand voted for sanctions on

Rand voted for sanctions on Iran, something his father says is an act of war. He has also recently stated he would wage a preemptive, see offensive war, on the side of Israel.

This is a major conflict against our foreign policy position. Many of us consider this just as important as our monetary position.

I agree

and that's why you and I differ on Rand. I think Rand is playing ball and you don't. Fine and dandy. If Rand gets a chance to run at the WH, you can call me stupid if Rand attacks Iran.

But I've got 5 extra ounces of Ag that says you're wrong, though.

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Unlike the others

Rand is not going to go to war without a declaration of war from Congress. War is very unpopular right now, so most of Congress won’t vote for it unless they want to loose their jobs.

PLUS, who's going to attack Israel and their 300 Nuclear weapons?? Iran?? NOT A CHANCE.

It’s all lip service. It ain't gonna happen.

Thank you

On top of that, why would Rand want to start WW3 with Russia? It just wouldn't make any sense.

Now, if Jebby Bush runs for office, we've got something to worry about.

Lima-1, out.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Rand's comments were an evil

Rand's comments were an evil compromise with the establishment. It was clearly the opposite of our foreign policy stance.

Entangling alliances we none, friendship with all.


. Sorry, wrong poster.

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.



Precisely. He still must play

Precisely. He still must play politics at some level. He has already made his views quite clear.

Rand is playing grand master level 4-dimensional hyper chess

and everyone else playing checkers.

9-11 was a panda job.

no no no

He's playing super duper secret 4D double spy chess! It has three and a half extra pieces and it's played on a 17 sided board.

Best part is, none of those pesky neocons can possibly figure out this plan, because nobody ever talks about it online or anything!

Sorry, but I think this whole "chess" nonsense is nothing more than a way for people to rationalize Rand's actions. THAT worries me far more than what he actually does, because it shows that people will ALWAYS be willing to let themselves be fooled to make things seem just a tad more comforting.

Rand's either fooling the ruling class or fooling the American people. Say, which group typically does the fooling, and which group is the one that typically gets fooled?

I don't dislike Rand, and I don't think he's an Illuminati Mossad Ziowhatever, but I *do* dislike this whole 'playing with the truth' style. People can justify it however they like, but it'll never sit right with me.

A signature used to be here!

or is he?



for opinions! Contradictions?