The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
10 votes

Videos: Rand Paul Syria Wrap Up - September 10. 2013

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Aha nice..

Rands bringing back the mullet lol


Mostly disappointing.

1. Paul never expresses doubt that Assad has, in fact, used chemical weapons. That's very diplomatic of him, not to doubt Obama's word -- but not at all honest.

2. He believes we SHOULD be involved militarily, protecting "American interests" in the Middle East, including Israel. Whatever happened to "no entangling alliances"?

3. He says that whoever used chemical weapons on civilians deserves death, implying, at least, that he thinks we should assassinate Assad. He left himself some wiggle room, though, saying that military actions should ONLY be taken if American interests are threatened -- which they are not.

Notice the second video, where Wolf Blitzer gives one of his most hostile interviews. He looks about ready to cry, when Paul doesn't froth at the mouth with eagerness to protect Israel by snuffing Assad.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

Rand is not making a case to

Rand is not making a case to non-interventionists. Get your head out of the sand.

He is an excellent debater and persuader of people outside of the average dailypaul crowd because he knows exactly how to frame an issue and bring it closer to the better position. His father proved that you cannot win by sticking to your guns despite what is effective. You cannot win by just insisting and never starting your argumentation from a position closer to the average (or even your opponent.)

The average person who's going to come across one of those clips on television is not approaching it with a patently non-interventionist stance. They VERY likely accept that chemical weapons were used because it's been paraded in the media. Insisting that the media has it all wrong, even if they do, makes you look like a kook. Insisting that no military action abroad is ever okay, even if it's the morally sound position, makes you look like a kook. I'm sorry to break this to you but you have to be more pragmatic to get anywhere in politics. If you don't like it maybe following politicians is not for you.

Those who don't support Rand but do support liberty are frankly missing the forest for the trees.

Debbie's picture

Agreed! Although I think Ron Paul's campaigns absolutely paved

the way for this, and he is still paving the way.


And most of my libertarian

And most of my libertarian colleagues would say baby steps, baby steps. Although I disagree with them that we have to sacrifice principle in order to effect change as it reflects as not genuine, Rand would have never got two seconds after Obama for that speech let alone any TV time if he had never endorsed Romney or played the game. Although I disagree with this tactic, I understand the argument made for it.. Personally I would rather see Justin Amash as president over Rand.