-35 votes

Rand Paul interview regarding Iran and immigration

http://youtu.be/-9cqq_fvIoc

Published on Feb 2, 2013
Senator Rand Paul discussed immigration reform, the Iranian nuclear situation and the Benghazi terrorist attack on WMAL.




Comment viewing options

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

Hey We Have Both Coined Phrases

for die hard Rand worshipping DP'ers. Randroids! I like that! I call them Randicons. Why not?

skippy

Do you like being called a

Do you like being called a Paultard?

Good Point

I have to admit it, I don't like ANYTHING that ends in "tard" You have me there.

skippy

I don't like being called

I don't like being called anything that ends in "roid"!

There's a third group.

But it's easy to conveniently forget us.

We are long time GOPers who have been supporting RP before 98% of you even knew who he was.

Personally, yes, I am disappointed in Rand insofar as he is not his father.

That said, other than his father, he's the SINGLE BEST that the GOP has had around since 1988. And, hence, this DP Rand bashing I find to be mindless and ridiculous.

The Rand bashers claim to be "principled" and yet will lie through their teeth to bash him like this Op poster has been.

It's unbecoming of Ron's legacy, of the DP and it's frankly reprehensible. Go back to the LP, where you can be among friends in your less than 1% of the voting public.

Us 10, 20 and 30 year + GOP Ron Paul supporters will be supporting Rand.

---

I voted you up and commended you in another post. But not this one.

Arrogance, and conveniently ignoring right from wrong serve no purpose. Lives can potentially be at stake, only to prop mic. Your post has just reaffirmed how much more work RP and I [since I can not say we] have to do.

It is imperative to vet ALL potential candidates, regardless of name.

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I don't disagree with this statement....

"It is imperative to vet ALL potential candidates, regardless of name."

And I ask you to reread what I wrote and point out an inaccuracy deserving of a downvote, please not on a feeling, but factual inaccuracy.

I ask again, other than Ron Paul himself, who do you think has been the best GOP elected person since 1988?

Further, I standby my statement about the LP. The LP is less than 1% of the voting public (FACT). It is an utter waste of time to discuss the LP and LP candidates (FACT). Ron Paul started the republiCAN movement (FACT) and wants us to work in the GOP.

So, unless you have someone better, being a lifetime Ron Paul Republican, there's only Rand.

Thanks.

Certainly.

"And I ask you to reread what I wrote and point out an inaccuracy deserving of a downvote, please not on a feeling, but factual inaccuracy... So, unless you have someone better, being a lifetime Ron Paul Republican, there's only Rand."

Neocons tried pushing that sh|t down my throat. I didn't buy it then, and I'm not buying it now. They were so sure that romney was their only hope, their salvation, that they would hold his feet to the fire to defend and protect the Constitution.

I am NOT saying that Rand is bad, Rand does have some positive attributes. But when he supports sanctions, feinstein-lee, options on the table regarding Iran which could potentially lead to innocents killed, and many other things that are on his record, yes, I can name a few others who I would rather support:

Amash, the Judge, Massey, and others. Rhetoric that any of those will not win will be by your doing, not mine. What are you doing to promote Liberty? Or will you vote lesser of the evils because it is less work, easier.

Freedom is not easy, my friend. If you are not in this for the right reasons, then hope becomes lost. Sh|t or get off the pot.

If I am not satisfied with the ballot, I will write-in once again. NOBODY will EVER force me to compromise. That is what got us into this sh|t hole mess to begin with!

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Just curious..

does FBI's comments about the LP have any relevance to you? FBI and Granger keep bringing up the LP as some kind of pejorative against anybody that dare question or dislike anything about Rand and I'm having a difficult time finding people that they use that label against that actually have had anything to do with the LP.

On the other hand, I know of a few who were gungho supporters of Gary Johnson that are now rabid Randites (go figure)....

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

weebles and FBI

Party has little relevance to me. I vote the person, not the party. I have no interest in gj.

Granger and others feel that they can work within the gop. While possible, I feel that it is fruitless at this point and time. We will be badgered and lied to all for naught. The Libertarian party, while not as bad, has its own problems to deal with.

Before we can effect change, it will require the masses to change their thinking, and to abandon this welfare society. The middle and older generations are set in their ways. It will be a new and young generation that can potentially effect the change that we seek.

Winning this election, or the next, will do no good, other than temporarily slow down the nwo agenda, and maybe sign an executive order to cancel the non-Constitutional ones signed by this and prior presidents. The masses will complain, and then elect another president, continuing this endless game of see-saw.

I firmly believe that if we hold our ground and continue to speak, live and teach Liberty, the up and coming generation will learn from us and carry it through. This can not be realized if we settle for second best or compromise our values, for if we do, we will be considered weak with no clear direction. We will be considered a short-lived fad.

I hold no ill-will toward Rand. He is a good man. But he is NOT Liberty. He is a Republican. My goal is to support and promote true conservative Liberty people such as Amash, Massey, the Judge and others, even if we do not win a one-time election. Ron Paul has reached millions of people without ever winning a single nomination. It is his principles that will be remembered and carried on. The legacy must be known, and taught.

My goal is to change the attitude of America. [We] I need our Republic back.

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Just for reference.

Even though we often disagree, the +1 was from me. :)

It's hard to disagree with your reply. That said, I'm a life long Republican. And a 18 year Ron Paul Republican. That's what *I* do.

+1 for you.

I often joke [only it's no joke] with other life-long 'Republicans' that I have only been registered as a Republican for less than a year, but far more conservative and for Liberty than they ;-)

I have faith that we will be seeing eye to eye, and agreeing more and more.

Not to toot my horn, well, I won't. You may someday know. That's what *I* do :-)

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

NOT as a pejoritive.

Reread what I wrote. If you can't deal in FACTS then you're failed before you begin.

The FACT is that the LP consists of less than 1% of registered voters. The FACT is that less than 1% of votes cast are LP.

It will not change from 1% to 20% in less than four years. That is a FACT.

Now process those FACTS in your calculus.

Furthermore, if I remember correctly, you are Christian (please correct me if I am wrong.)

As such, you are well aware of the golden rule. If you did not like being called a Paultard, you should not be calling other people Randroids or any other name. If I am correct about you, continuing to do so is in direct contradiction to the Golden Rule and what you have been instructed.

My inquiry...

was whether ProudAmericanFirst has any history or involvement with or even moments of admiration for the LP as to make your comments referring to the LP contextually relevant. Are you aware of any such relationship? :)

I could not find any connection between your comments where you refer to the LP and the comment or person you had replied to.

As far as the Golden Rule and christianity, I am sympathetic with the majority of christians I know. Mostly good people. With regards to political pet names, I mostly refrain from the "-tard" postfix. I have been using "Randites". If I determine that my discussion "opponent" is not fragile and a good sport then I have no compunction against joining in the creative label-flinging fray. I especially have no problems engaging in it with ancaps and other assorted anarchists who love to call me "statist". :D

I have high regard for the Golden Rule and try to practice it as much as possible. But lots of people, especially males, like a bit of aggressive banter now and then. Especially in the political debate arena.

As an atheist (please correct me if I'm wrong) what is your regard for the Golden Rule?

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I am not an atheist.

Where did you get such an idea?

Furthermore, the facts I posted are objective facts, i.e. unrelated to the PERSON I was replying to. You assumed something that was not in question.

Can't agree with you there!

I am one of those to whom your refer, having been following and donating to Ron Paul since 1980 during the Reagan Revolution. Reagan agreed with Ron Paul on foreign policy and monetary policy, and counted him a true friend. The son, Rand, doesn't measure up. I taught my five children, when you're right I will be your biggest defender and when you're wrong you're wrong. Rand Paul cannot abandon his oath of office because it is convenient politically. There is no authority for the United States to dictate to any foreign power what energy or weapons they may develop. If they commit a hostile act against us, only then will the congress, and the congress only, have the authority for military intervention. So in short "us 10-30 year + GOP Ron Paul supporters WILL NOT SUPPORT ANY NEOCON CAPITULATER REGARDLESS OF HIS LAST NAME! Whether between now and then Rand can correct his path, redeem himself as worthy of our support is a very big question indeed. If I had to lay odds, I'd say it doesn't look good.
Draft Napolitano! He gets it!

RON PAUL is the GOLD STANDARD of politics, his value never changes; it's tied to the CONSTITUTION!

So again I have to ask you.

Who is the best GOP elected personality since 1988 OTHER THAN Ron Paul.

If they are all scoundrels, which one is the best one of the lot since 1988. Other than Ron Paul?

Please advise.

do deliberately misrepresenting titles hurt a poster's credit?

should be the real question

My take is...

"A Real Conservative" should stop apologizing. He did good. The title was justifiably provocative since Rand basically said "we should attack Iran if diplomacy fails to stop them from having nuclear weapons".

We have no right to tell Iran what technologies they can or can't have. Ron said it in front of a national audience during a debate that Iran has every right to develop and own nuclear weapons!

Further, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove Iran is not developing or does not have them. Which means guaranteed war! We made up lies about Iraq and millions died and were displaced. They will make up the same kind of lies about Iran. It's easy!

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Did Rand say "we should

Did Rand say "we should attack Iran if diplomacy fails to stop them from having nuclear weapons"? Your use of quotations is incorrect.

How funny...

You are accusing me of misquoting when the source you built your accusation on is:

"The title was justifiably provocative since Rand basically said "we should attack Iran if diplomacy fails to stop them from having nuclear weapons"."

Why didn't you include my use of "basically" in the snippet you used as evidence against me?

Thesaurus:
basically - In regard to the essence of a matter: essentially, fundamentally.

Dictionary:
basically - used when referring to the main or most important characteristic or feature of something

My use of BASICALLY modifies the quoted phrase and renders it as a summary (you fully know this).

BASICALLY, you intentionally manipulated my verbiage to accuse me of manipulating verbiage. How precious, ironic and devious of you. :>

Shouldn't you be out randomly accusing people who express displeasure with Rand as being secret liberal progressive gary johnson/ralph nader supporters?

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Quotations are used for

Quotations are used for quotes silly. That's learned in the 2nd grade. I have nothing else to add.

Did you miss the day...

they covered modifiers? :>

"In grammar, a modifier is an optional element in phrase structure or clause structure.[1] A modifier is so called because it is said to modify (change the meaning of) another element in the structure, on which it is dependent."

You are just being petty in an attempt to defend your dishonest representation of my verbiage...

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Nope, just pointing out your

Nope, just pointing out your dishonest representation of Rands interview.

Do you REALLY...

think you are saving face by pretending to not know what it means when a quoted phrase is prepended by "Rand basically said"?

And then you accuse ME of dishonesty? Your epidermis is showing... :>

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Maybe you are not

Maybe you are not intentionally being dishonest but you are misrepresenting the facts. I'm right on this one and you my friend are clearly on the defense and have resulted to insults.

The problem with a lot of people here is that when confronted you all turn into spoiled little children. This conversation is over because you have some growing up to do.

I am intentionally..

pointing out your dishonesty. You intentionally left off the "Rand basically said" when you referenced my verbiage. Because if you had included it then your point would have been self-destroying on its face.

I quickly found these two phrases using google:

Might as Well Have Said, "LET IT ALL GOT TO HELL!"
Obama Essentially Said, "I Hope My Kids Succeed; I'm Not Worried About The Rest Of The World"

And such phrasing is understood by most all people. Especially people who are active contributors to internet forums.

You might as well be saying, "I think Daily Pauler's are easily fooled dimwits." :)

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Who Are You To Judge

whether or not it was deliberate? Michael came out with an article telling us to post whatever we want, to use DP as a safe place to post our thoughts and ideas and to try out our abilities at writing. He posted that just the other day. He said that this was a community of like minded people that could share. He basically said that anything goes as long as it's civil. He is trying to encourage those here that mostly "lurk" to join in. Where do we get off attacking people for doing just that? If you don't agree with a post then just give a reason why you don't agree but let's not ATTACK the poster! As for "credit" Who made anyone the Posting Police? I don't care what my "credit" is. That is just more public school type BS. Did I make an "A" Did I make a "D" WHO CARES?

skippy

Yes, people are generally free to lie.

But should they?

What would Ron Paul think about it?

I can tell you. He would not have pleasant words for the lie or liar.

like when rand

(at the RNC) claimed to not to know of any mistreatment of his father's delegates and supporters?