-61 votes

Rand Who? Still nothing but a run-of-the-mill GOP Hack.

Nobody, nobody likes being suckered or taken for a patsy.

And nobody suckers 'em like Rand Who?...

Some times it's really hard to believe.

There is no way that any of us should be paying any attention to the little curly-haired twerp, other than to plaster him with danger signs.

WARNING: Rand Paul is a FAKE. Don't be fooled.

New Link:

“If he cosies up to the Russian government, it will be nothing but bad for his name in history,” said Rand Paul, the libertarian Republican senator who had initially defended Mr Snowden.

“If he goes to an independent third country like Iceland and if he refuses to talk to any sort of formal government about this, I think there’s a chance he’ll be seen as an advocate of privacy. If he cosies up to either the Russian government, Chinese government or any of these governments perceived still as enemies of ours, I think that will be a real problem for him in history.”

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

What I find interesting about the Rand haters is...

They ignore his voting record and then harp on some stuff he's saying.

I don't really care what comes out of the man's mouth. Check his voting record and what he's been doing in the senate.

I mean the guy held up the ban on bath salts for months all by himself!

Even though he says he's not for "ending the WoD" when he was talking to a bunch of Socons. I think you need to read between the lines a little and do realize while he panders verbally to Socons he's not actually voting much like one!

Dirty little secret

The sneaky...dirty little secret is that Sen. Paul stands to benefit from the hand wringing of anarchists--who, if you ask them and they are intellectually honest, they don't even bloody believe in voting. LOL! The anger only allows Paul to look more moderate to, gasp, normal people.

We are strong, creative and courageous, but libertarians don't vote in relevant numbers in elections. Many of us only surround ourselves with friends (and enemies) who agree with us--in an echo chamber.

Check out http://iroots.org/
"If you’re into political activism, at least for Ron Paul if not for anyone else, I strongly recommend spending some time with iroots.org." - Tom Woods

R.W?. is much too comfortable with neocon jingoism.

This is the guy who came out in favour of Romney.

Maybe if one is spaced out on bath salts none of your
personal freedoms are very important to you.
Freedom? Man, I ain't goin nowhere.

R.W?. likes big government because he has a
dream of driving that big rig himself some day.

R.W?. plays the libertarian/tea party/good-old-boy card
when his handlers say that it is time for him to do so.

Of course we lament that we don't get real thing.
RP = Apostle, Prophet, Philosopher.

R.W?.'s a quasi-fascist actor, not a philosopher.
A poseur, not a prophet.
A neoconnish arschloch, not an a apostle.

"youve got the wrong man... my name is danger."

Rand certainly is not a hack

which implies he is morally bankrupt and without personal conviction.
Rand chose to focus on the NSA’s spying overreach as a problem instead of overreacting one way or the other. He engaged his brain instead of his emotions which is the kind of person I will support in the WH. While pols like King, McCain, and Graham and the liberal statists like Feinstein and Kerry are the real hacks who pander to the lowest witch hunt common denominator blasting the messenger, Rand is proactively front and center encouraging lively debate. That is exactly what we need to flush out the statists, and they are definitely projecting their own “traitor” bona fides as they spew their venom. Your pejorative reference to Rand’s China and Russia warnings is misdirected. Rand clearly prefaced his statements by praising Snowden’s whistle blowing as truth-telling
in contrast to Clapper’s lying so let’s not take what Rand said out of the context of the bigger picture. “Mr. Clapper lied in Congress in defiance of the law in the name of security. Mr. Snowden told the truth in the name of privacy.” That is really the heart of the matter.

Hack: n. [hak]

a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack.

You are grasping at straws

Instead of money or rewards, what Rand is receiving is the wrath of the neocons calling his statements “outrageous”; he has put himself out there against the excessive NSA surveillance only to be attacked for it. Taking the opposing position vs. the politically ‘safe’ government line and calling out NSA and Clapper for his lying demonstrates integrity so I disagree with you entirely.

Watch at the 33:33


"Is the relationship between US and China heading toward some kind of cold war kind of thing?" -Alexis

"I think that's getting a little bit ahead of things, Alexis." -Carney

Yea, that was the question

Yea, that was the question just before the question and statement in question. Eerie, indeed, but that's getting a little bit ahead of things. The question the lady poses after that comment and the following comment are relevant to the OPs' concerns.

I'd cozy up with anyone that would have me right now...

And I am willing to bet Snowden would piss on a spark plug if he thought it would keep him out of the USA's corrupt justice system...
That being said...I don't see what Rand has said wrong, in the statements you have quoted...Rand isn't his dad...But he is far better than anything else we could possibly hope for right now...

Bad food, worse weather, please rEVOLution the states so I can bring my family back home!
Rosa Koire for for President!

You're quite confused for a 5 yr member here on the DP.

That's quite peculiar. Or perhaps you're just being overly wordy and critical.

Check it out

"What a crock."

"I didn't know that ANYONE bought into that line of hooey anymore."

You don't seem to know much of anything outside of your little world and you are lashing out at people who see both worlds quite clearly. Honestly, it's a little offense when you go around saying that people are "all politics and no principle" as you said to me just b/c I see politics while you apparently don't. You don't have to be totally blind to the world in order to have principles. I'm not sure why you think its a prerequisite, it's not.

Anyway, I'll just tell you to settle down a little bit. There are way more than plenty of people on this site and elsewhere who believe ALL THE SAME THINGS AS YOU and still support Rand. Maybe you're right and we're wrong. Maybe it's the other way around. But, either way, you should probably stop crucifying your "friends" and spend your time promoting the issues you care about. If you focus on issues rather than people and poloticians, you will probably find much more success. Issues are fairly objective.

"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as 'free enterprise.' I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live..." - Robert A. Taft

Rand speaks the truth. As bad

Rand speaks the truth. As bad as the US has become on civil and privacy rights, neither China nor Russia are paragons of virtue. They stink as bad as the US. It's just that the wind has shifted lately.

Rand did not say that China and Russia are bad.

He said they are perceived as US enemies, so it is bad for Snowden's image to be associated with them. And obviously that is true, since the MSM has used Snowden's association with China and Russia to label him a traitor.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Yes, I see. The OP however

Yes, I see. The OP however implies that Rand should be waving the flags of China and Russia.

The OP is very confused...

...about China and Russia and about Rand.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Yes. Very.

Yes. Very.

No offense

But You're Quite Far Off On Your analysis

He never.

Rand never claimed to be like his father and never claimed any libertarian position. Why the surprise?


...how Rand's position on the NSA spying/Snowden affair is not libertarian. What is it you are accusing Rand of doing/saying?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Regnad Kcin

I spell my name Danger.
It all came rushing back to me....
like the hot kiss
at the end of a wet fist. :)
hey buddy :)
still causin trouble huh? :)
heh... good to hear from you again.

I can't help but notice

that it's mostly the 'blue' commenters, i.e. those of us that came into this movement earlier that are most skeptical and annoyed by Rand Paul.

Many of us still remember how so many good "progressives" supported and defended Obama when he started sounding more and more like a war hawk in his first general election. "Oh he just HAS to say that to get elected," they kept assuring themselves.

I don't trust Rand Paul as far as I can throw him. I too was excited when he decided to run, but it only took one terrible interview with Scott Horton on Antiwar Radio to wake me up to the realization that this guy is clearly willing to throw principle in the trash for the sake of ambition.

All you younger fellas in the movement would do well to be a little more reluctant to give him the benefit of the doubt all the time.

Good interview, thanks! [not terrible at all]

It's maybe not as good as Scott's interviews with Rand's dad, Lew Rockwell, or Will Grigg, but good nonetheless. Speaking of good Horton interviews, I've always quite enjoyed his final on Antiwar Radio...
http://antiwar.com/radio/2012/06/30/lew-rockwell-20/ ...enjoy :)

Oh, and here's my favorite since Scott left AntiWar...

Dear 'blue' commenter

I don't remember anyone supporting Obama on DP but progressive trolls and sell outs from antiwar.com who refused to promote Ron Paul and supported Obama.

Rand has come a long way since 2009.. too bad the arrogant Scott Horton hasn't, didn't even introduce Rand correctly. Rand called it on the economy. Rand is awesome and consistant in this interview while Scott is trying to "own" him.. he FAILS BIG TIME. He's attacking Rand like Rand has been in congress for years.. Rand brings up weed.. and to his credit, he has passed an industrial hemp bill in Kentucky. Rand is so much smarter than Scott.. Scott is so anti-republican .. he's saying Rand respects Bush? Scott is schooling Rand on his Dad... desperation and bigotry.. prejudiced Horton. Rand is SOOO nice..

Then he attacks Rand again on NEPUTISM, and he wants his accusation that Rand is neputizing so get Rand to stop running.. this interveiw is a POS.

Guatanemo prisoners are still in jail.. what's Obama doing 6 years later? Rand is trying to tell Scott what the problem is.. Scott goes from Bush to Cheney, Rand brings up Pelousi and Scott IGNORS Pelousi's power (she has the check for the balance), so Scott gives Pelousi a free pass. because what Scott wants to do is damn rand for being a republican. This is one reason why antiwar SUCKS.

The only reason I got in the GOP was to support Ron Paul, and that was one of the hardest things I have ever done in my life on many levels politically.. it has worked out because my committee is now a liberty committee.

Now we all look at each other like, "who's going to the BIG PARTY at the RNC in 2016 when we control it?" Watch out Pribus because we're ready for you and the silencer. Rand sure doesn't need my help, and he's WAY better than Ron when it comes to galvenizing a political party.

WE ARE THE FUTURE and even Gary Johnson is getting back in the GOP and hoping to run with Rand.

LOL Scott says Obama says we'll be out of Irag by 2012.

You trust Scott Horton? Listen to your interview..Rand called it said Obama wouldn't have troops out by 2012. SCOTT LOST.

you clearly don't listen to

you clearly don't listen to Horton much and you clearly also have some sort of strange allegiance to Rand that there doesn't seem to be any reasoning with. there's a reason Ron Paul is beloved by the greatest libertarian minds of the last half century, while those same minds speak little of Rand.

look, Rand is by far America's best Senator. but that isn't saying a whole lot these days. the problem i have with him is he waters down principle. will that take him further politically than his far more principled father? probably. is that a good thing for this country or for humanity? i think that really remains to be seen.

guys like reagan and john stossel pretend to champion 'libertarian' ideals and the press goes on to grant them that title. they may change a few minds and maybe even a policy or two. but what winds up getting sidelined is TRUE ideas of liberty. Ron Paul gets labeled the extremist while Rand wears the "I'm a more practical version of my father" banner, all the while supporting Iran sanctions that actually are MURDERING people, and saying inane things like "an attack on Israel is an attack on the US", or "I'm ok with drone striking a dude robbing a liquor store," or "we just gave the Iraqis a democracy" etc etc etc.

It doesn't sit well with a great deal of us. He may be elected President someday and I'll admit I'd look at such a development favorably. But I hold no illusions that he'd be anything more than a lightweight semi-reformer. I hope I'm wrong.

dear 'blue commenter" response

By attacking me and insulting me YOU prove you have an agenda and are not here to debate but press your anti-Republican rant in attackung Rand.

In 1988, I had been a libertarian for 12 years, and I did NOT vote for Republican Ron Paul who joined the LP for all of 6 months to steal the LP nomination from far more deserving libertarians. RP was NOT beloved but resented by many libertarians, who like me, left that lame excuse for a party that is nothing but a soap box for Republicans that can't make the GOP nomination. He may be "beloved" by a few inteligent hacks who use him so someone will buy their books, but the fact is, they are going nowhere politically, and wax academically, least you forget Noam Chomsky is a Libertarian. Those minds have nothing to do with Rand because Rand is not a pied piper like his Dad. Ron got me into the GOP, and Rand is keeping me in the GOP because he is the best thing happening (and the RNC promises to be the best party of the decade).

You say he waters down his principle.. what you really mean is, he nominated Romney.. and what people like you don't like is you can't deal with the reality, Ron was NOT in to win. What Rand's nomination did was wake up those who had signed the loyalty oaths to the party and the GOP was gearing up to take us OUT. THANK YOU RAND.. he has liberty committees where all his dad had was neocon committees and sign wavers. The only thing here remaining to be seen is what you will do (my bet is you run away).

I am a stanch zionist. Ron Paul said "Israel is our very good friend". Unlike many here, I dug deep to find out why.. after all, didn't Ron see the millions of videos about Israel apartide, murdering children, spying on the USA? Where did Ron Paul get off saying Israel is our friend?

Now I know. Most the millions of videos about Israel are half truths, propeganda to have Americans turn against Israel.. why? Because the global powers want Americans to become Palestinians/ Syrian Rebels. Why? Because none of those people have any rights. Israeli's have FREEDOM, because Israel PROTECTS their rights and will kill to keep them. Think about that when you read folks here armed to the teeth and crying about not having enough ammo, storing rice.. this is cave man thinking if you look to see what Israel is doing by comparison.. and Israel is a very small area.. we should be emulating Israel not damning Israel.

And it's hard to find the goods on Israel.. it's buried .. I have two business ideas from watching Israel (one company that started in February has already made a profit of $130 million, has 30K partners, and ILLEGAL in the USA, so we are LOSING. Israel is so far ahead of us.. we are going backwards while they are advancing.. The more I see the GOODS on Israel, the more I see all the claims against Israel as propeganda.. we are being sold a bill for our demise.. you know it, your feel it, you can see it.. and Palestine is NOT the way to overcome, but to enbed you/ bury you. So if that's where you want to be with some altruistic idea that this makes you more principled than Rand or me, or anyone who is going beyond sustaining and approaching THRIVE.. Cry rant away.. it's all you got and it's your own fault for NOT digging, not asking questions, claiming defeatest principles. DO WHAT YOU WANT. And be sure to call me "the herd".. though it's pretty apparent I'm standing alone here, but am very strong, because I see the truth and it does not upset me, but empowers me.. and I empower Rand.

Who will you empower? not Palestine no matter how hard you work at empowering Palestine over your own freedom. They don't have freedom.

a warning

I think Rand was just trying to warn Snowden through the media to becareful with Russia, though they might be a willing ally for him right now it wouldnt smart to trust them and its bad PR in the court of public opinion, but I think Snowden is smart enough to know this already

that did cross my mind, but i

that did cross my mind, but i suspect if true, politically, i dont think he'd admit, that, or thats not what he meant

I wanna like rand, but, he keeps ringing my small alarm bells, and i cant just ignore them, but out of respect for those here who support him, and believe he can bring about real change, im willing to wait and see......except for those occasions i feel the need to stick my nose in, and ask that people to be critical aswell as supportive, IF and WHEN the need arises, hopefully, it wont

Agree completely

Just like Steve said, he's just talking about the PR he will receive if he goes to Russia, and he's correct in that assessment. Russia is not known for their human rights, remember the protests when Putin was 99% of the vote, but a ton of people came out against him. They're just as rigged if not worse than our country in many ways. Iceland would be his best bet PR wise, as they thumbed their nose at the EU, and actually indicted and locked up their criminal banksters.

Holy $h!t

You're terrible at comprehension!

Beep beep boop beep... I am a Paulbot... prepare for liberty and prosperity!