-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.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Again I Say

Don't Delete! Don't be bullied! It is NOT the consensus. Just the opinion of a few die hard Rand worshippers. Not EVERYONE on DP thinks that Rand is the be all just because he had Ron for a Dad. He sold out and made that clear when he went on Hannity while HIS OWN DAD was running for president and endorsed that snake Romney! Stick to your guns! I can almost say that literally now can't I?

skippy

The only bullying I see here

The only bullying I see here is from the anti Rand crowd.

We got your back, man...

:)

Hang tight!

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

DON"T DELETE

EVER! You have the right to post stuff how you see it! Don't be bullied by other people here! GEEZ! Maybe you should tell them to change THEIR posts to fit YOUR views! NO WAY DELETE OR CHANGE IT!

skippy

Cyril's picture

Why delete?

I don't see any reason to delete all of it. I find sane to question Rand's point of view or sometimes unclear statements.

Only your post's title appears very biased, on this one, IMO. A mod hopefully will help you out to change it, if the tip I gave just below doesn't help.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

OP: I had to re-watch again. Your post title is VERY misleading.

OP: I had to re-watch again. Your post title is VERY misleading.

Although Rand's point might appear ambiguous and not clear enough to some of us, Rand did not say that.

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Interviewer Asked If War was an Option

Rand said, "all options are on the table"

skippy

IF DIPLOMACY AND TRADE DID NOT WORK

THEN all options are on the table.

Why wouldn't they be?

Because the U.S government

Because the U.S government should never start a war against another country. We should simply have a strong national defense as a deterrent against other countries that may wish to attack us.

I agree with that

And so does Rand, the problem is, the GOP still has Bush Republicans to DEAL with, and that's why he makes clear, diplomacy and trade are his option, BUT IF that doesn't work, what alternative is there?

It eliminates pre emptive because he's putting diplomacy to the forefront.

Sanctions = Preemptive War

He voted for sanctions, already.

He has already pushed diplomacy into the background.

Rand cannot escape from his doublespeak.

Sanctions...

are war against children and sick people. :\

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Then a mod can edit the title

Then a mod can edit the title or just delete this post. I don't know how to. I posted how I interpreted his comment.

Cyril's picture

Well, presumably, if you're logged in you should be able to edit

Well, presumably, if you're logged in, you should be able to edit whatever you want by hitting this URL:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/273049/edit

As for what I alluded to, Rand never said or meant to say, in my understanding : "... SHOULD be on the table, etc"

Putting "SHOULD" in there is way too strong, IMO.

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

WTF. He actually refused to tell what he would do.

What he meant is that he wouldn't tell what he would do, except politician style.

Look, I admit I get uncomfortable sometimes when I hear Rand Paul talk about locking down the borders instead letting more people come legally. I admit that I get a little uncomfortable about his talking about marraige being legally defined as between a man and a woman. There are other things, too.

Ultimately, on almost every issue, he's better in some way or another than all of the current potential candidates. Plus, there's always the more than slight possibility that he'll end up pulling an "Obama" on the neocons and actually begin wind down some of our overseas military presence. It's also important that he's standing up for us and telling everyone including leaders that they need to listin to us and give us a bigger voice.

I like Rand's position on

I like Rand's position on immigration and marriage. I would just like to support someone who's more of a paleo-con like myself; someone similar to pastor Chuck Baldwin who is socially conservative but supports a non interventionist foreign policy.

Is he?

Is he?

Look

We can express dissappointment at what Rand Paul is doing. Ultimately, we have time and we can continue to watch his record. When the time comes, his record should dictate whether or not we back him.

Federal Farmer

You are spot on. We must look at ALL records and vote accordingly, when the time comes. What bothers me is that most are puting all of their eggs into one basket. While establishment has a few candidates to choose from, we usually end up with +/- 1.

It was my hope that after 2008, then 2012, our grassroots would have grown enough and had ample support to prop another candidate of our choosing and not let one be decided for us. This seems not to be the case :-(

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

Cyril's picture

Another angle of view on Rand

Another angle of view on Rand

I have already expressed the essential of what I had to say on such statements from Rand:

http://www.dailypaul.com/271985#comment-2931492

I still like the man very much for everything he has said by the past on many other topics about which I would wholeheartedly agree with him - even before he would express himself on those.

Now on this Iran "issue" and position taking, after what I said and linked to, above:

So, Rand ... double speak, much? I am uncertain.

Or wouldn't it be: confused much? VERY LIKELY SO, IMO.

We CAN help him. Isn't he a great example that liberty does work? Don't we know about HIS father and the huge gap we ARE witnessing between the two's respective rhetorics?

I would find SUSPECT if Rand was A PERFECT CLONE of his father. And, indeed, he is NOT. So, what about it?

Well, I think Rand and Dr. Paul have had political experiences sharing a lot in common but also significantly DISTINCT on many other facets.

WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT, folks.

Let us keep our focus on either DEFENDING OR DENOUNCING the ideas for their qualities or flaws. It's not so much about the man than about the lessons we can draw from political corruption and moral hazard.

IMO, it is of NO HELP to shoot hard at Rand from a strictly political standpoint - it's intellectually, morally we have to put him back on the right tracks; here are a few points that might help:

EVEN IF Iran ALREADY HAD military nuclear research and projects going on, it takes MORE THAN a decade - if not 15 years at minima - FOR ANY COUNTRY to even hope have it operational - AND PRIOR thoroughly tested - as a force of strike against others.

And HERE ARE the reported nuclear forces on this planet as of today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_wea...

(pay especially attention at which YEARS each is reported to have gained military nuclear power)

My point is:

the argument for preemptive attacks or sanctions against Iran on the assumption of PRESUMED, planned, scheduled aggression on any country - including the U.S. or Israel - DOES NOT HOLD any water.

WHAT DOES HOLD WATER, on the other hand IS THE SUSTAINED, CONSTANT, DECEPTION TALKS coming from Israel's rulers.

PROOF:

http://www.dailypaul.com/272996/netanyahu-israel-is-too-weak...

THAT IS what we need to point out Rand to.

Please, let us HELP RAND, calmly, get out of the political fallacy he is stuck in. We can do it.

Let's just keep speaking to him. We can't "shoot him down" just yet - he is still one of us, IMO. Only VERY CONFUSED. And maybe under pressures WE have NO idea about.

IMO, do I make sense?

I hope I do, and I hope it helps,

&

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

I find odd to get two down votes upfront on this out of the blue

I find odd to get two down votes upfront on this, out of the blue.

But whatever. I have nothing to add.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

This to "A Real Conservative"....

You posted a misleading title.

Not intentionally. That's

Not intentionally. That's just the way I interpreted his comments. I posted the video so people can listen to it and judge for themselves.

You lied.

He didn't say it. The words were NOWHERE IN THE CLIP, not asked, not stated.

You can interpret all you want, that's your prerogative. But when you say someone says something they didn't say AND YOU KNOW IT, it's called good ole fashioned LYING.

So figure out how to say that it's YOUR OPINION he said it.

But don't say he said it when he didn't.

And you're absolutely lying

And you're absolutely lying when you claim that the question wasn't even asked.

Really?

I put the EXACT times in the video when the conversation began, when the question was asked and when the response was given in my reply below.

IT DIDNT HAPPEN.

People can listen for themselves and see who is telling the truth. They don't need to rely on you or me.

No, he actually said that in

No, he actually said that in the interview. He said that "everything should remain on the table" when asked whether he would support a military strike on Iran to prevent them from aquiring a nuclear weapon.

I agree with the original title.

"Rand Paul says preemptive war with Iran should be on the table" is perfectly appropriate for Rand's lame-brained innuendo.

ANYTHING means ANYTHING -- including preemptive war. If Rand doesn't mean everything isn't on the table, he shouldn't have insinuated it, because it is an insult to Iran's honor, he defames them by insinuating *anything* should be done at all where nothing should be done.

Iran hasn't done anything to the United States, so Iran does not deserve to have veiled threats made against them.

Besides all this, by voting to place sanctions on Iran, Rand has already waged preemptive war on Iran; his actions have already defined his position for us; he has already said he is willing to wage preemptive war against Iran.

That's how anti Rand people

That's how anti Rand people want to interpret it. But if you actually listen...he says nothing of the sort.

Umm...Not Intentionally...

still doesn't make it truth. As the author, you can change it. So, way don't you?