Should a liberal Democrat vote for Rand Paul? Here's one who says, "yes."

[boneyard bill]

Isn't Ron Paul at the very least sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism? Why should liberals vote for him on that basis?

First of all, this discussion isn't about Ron Paul. It's about Rand Paul, and Rand is far less ideological than his father although he is roughly on the same side of the political spectrum.

Secondly, while Ron was good friends with Murray Rothbard, who pretty much invented anarcho-capitalism, I never heard that he has endorsed it. He favors limited government but not no government. AFAIK anarcho-capitalists do not run for political office.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Isn't Ron Paul at the very least sympathetic to anarcho-capitalism? Why should liberals vote for him on that basis?

First of all, this discussion isn't about Ron Paul. It's about Rand Paul, and Rand is far less ideological than his father although he is roughly on the same side of the political spectrum.

First of all Rand is much less ideological, but they are about the same. Huh?

Secondly, while Ron was good friends with Murray Rothbard, who pretty much invented anarcho-capitalism, I never heard that he has endorsed it.

And even if he did in his newsletter that doesn't mean he actually felt that way.

He favors limited government but not no government. AFAIK anarcho-capitalists do not run for political office.

Ah... the good ole "limited government".

Limited Government - When used by Libertarian, means whatever the hell they want it to mean at that point in time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The "right to privacy" is a shorthand expression for the 4th and 5th amendments and other provisions of the constitution which pertain to privacy but say absolutely nothing about abortion. It makes no sense to claim that this mere expression somehow creates a right to more than what it is referring to, but that is exactly what Justice Blackman did.

It doesn't bring up the right to an appendectomy either.

No one assumes that Rand Paul is somehow an across the board liberal.

Or really even mildly liberal.

But if you are concerned about our war-mongering foreign policy and the outrageous abuse of civil liberties, Rand Paul definitely is more liberal in those areas.

You mean more than Democrats, right?

Meanwhile, Paul will cut the budget.

Sure. With Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security growing in their influence on the total spending in the budget, it soon won't matter what cuts are made elsewhere as the other programs grow at a rate larger than the cuts.

But we're running deficits of a trillion dollars a year!

!

So there's a crying need to cut the budget, and Rand Paul wouldn't spare the defense budget as Hillary probably would.

Interesting. So Paul will get a budget passed that slashes the defense budget?

Rand Paul is a true liberal on a few issues. Hillary is a faux liberal on just about everything. Will some liberals vote for Rand Paul on that basis? The author of the OP article will and apparently so will some on this discussion board.

True. It is hard to tell if Clinton supports domestic drone strikes.

What is odd is that Paul is for the same type of policies that led to the '08 crash and then likely would have been against the immediately needed efforts to quell that crash.

 

[untermensche]

Paul has appeal compared to the other crazies that will run in the Republican primaries.

But when compared to somebody not fighting exclusively for the far right, he has less appeal.

Against Hillary, it is a draw and women could decide the election.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion.

Actually, in Numbers 5, god gives Moses instructions on how to perform an abortion.

 

[SimpleDon]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

Here's one liberal Democrat who's so disaffected with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that he's ready to support Rand Paul for president in 2016. Anybody here think he's wrong?

Yes, of course, he is wrong. Libertarians are idealists. They believe in a Millieon, as in John Stuart Mill, world that is unrealistic. It is a fantasy.

Yes, we should be letting people out of prison who are there because they are black or who committed victimless crimes. But they are largely there because of the fear mongering in the past of Paul's party of choice, the Republicans. I don't see how voting for them would help these matters.

But should dangerous drugs be legalized as the Libertarians want to do? I would say not. I haven't taken illegal drugs myself, I was an officer in the Navy, a pilot, during that time in the 60's and 70's when drug use was common, but it doesn't take a drug user to realize that young people are basically stupid about long term risks and that drugs, even marijuana effects your concentration and cognitive abilities. It is better to continue to discourage their use, even if we stop imprisoning users.

And is the Libertarian attitude against any and all military actions realistic? Once again, I would say that it is not. Especially considering that they believe that mutually beneficial trade between countries with free market economies would make war unthinkable. This is a joke. The free market is an unobtainable fantasy, the never-neverland of economic thought. If you are willing to do it the justice of saying that it is the product of thought. It is the product of misplaced faith, less convincing than the tooth fairy with less evidence supporting it than there is for the Easter rabbit.

And trade has caused more wars than it could have prevented.

There is a middle ground where we don't have to support the conservatives' wars from mistakes and for profit and complete abandonment of our role as the last super power, the last bastion for good in the world. Sometimes war is justified, even if a half black, half white man is the one trying to justify it.

Once again, it is Paul's party of choice who mistakenly waged war, not the least because they had done nothing to prevent the largest terrorist attack in our country, against our citizens, even after they were warned.

And the author mentioned in passing that there are a few differences that he has with Paul's economics. Where to start. There is the fore mentioned problem that Paul's economics is based on a fantasy, the self-regulating free market. Or that the in addition to waging a mistaken war the other product of conservative governance that we have been subjected to recently was the second worst recession in the last century, brought about because of the faith in the fantasy of the self-regulating free market, this time in the financial mortgage market. Deregulation to the absurd. The belief that the participants in the financial mortgage market didn't need adult supervision, that even if they could make a lot of money by doing so that they would never intentionally destabilize the market, bringing the country's economy down with it. The conservatives were very wrong to put their faith in the fantasy. And they are still in denial that the fantasy of deregulation caused the recession. They are forced to concoct obvious lies to convince themselves that it wasn't the fantasy to blame.

And who depends more on the fantasy and the lies than your garden verity conservative? Yes, your bat sh*t crazy anarchist/libertarian, whose entire philosophy depends on the existence of the never before seen fantasy of the existence of the self-regulating, self-organizing free market. He is going to replace the government and its laws and regulations with the fantasy.

Is there a reason to vote for Rand Paul if you are a liberal? No, there is not.

 

[lpetrich]

If you want to acquit liberals of any desire to oppose warmongering, police state legislation, and crony capitalism ...

So if you don't like Rand Paul, you are automatically in favor of these things???

As to crony capitalism, the Republican Party hasn't exactly been rejecting donations from crony capitalists.

Rand Paul wants to reduce the budget because we are spending ourselves into oblivion, and most of Washington has their heads in the sand.

That makes as much sense as fearing one's own shadow.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Of course there are liberal Democrats who oppose abortion, and there are libertarians who oppose abortion. It isn't about a right to choose. It's about when life begins.

By me : And such "sanctity of life" (from the time of conception) minded "Liberal Democrats" and Libertarians would somehow not be influenced by their religious beliefs?Ah!You see Boneyardbill, a self declared "liberal Democrat" is not going to dismiss science for the sake of abiding to beliefs promoted by the Bible. Again, I will be vividly interested to see how "some on this board" self declared "liberal democrats" supporting Rand Paul will justify compatibility between opposing abortions based on the "sanctity of life" (just like Rand Paul) and being a "liberal Democrat".

By you : And if there is any doubt, it is surely preferable to choose a right to life over a right to privacy especially since the constitution says absolutely nothing about a right to privacy.

By me : Oh dear...now I have to rub your nose into the Bill of Rights :

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

Never heard of how privacy rights have been extended over the course of several court precedents? Let me suggest you read the content of the link above.

Anyhow, so it is quite clear, my reply was not there for you to give me your opinion about terminating or pursuing a pregnancy. My reply was to point to the improbability of self declared "liberal Democrats" and especially "some on this board" to just sweep under the carpet Paul's stances on abortion. I have to wonder how many "liberal Democrats" you frequent and socialize with, especially "some on this board".

By you :From your own link:

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.

As if I am not capable of comprehending the first sentence. However, contrary to you, I made the effort to read and comprehend the entirety of the article I submitted which confirms precedents of how Privacy Rights have been extended.

By you :The "right to privacy" is a shorthand expression for the 4th and 5th amendments and other provisions of the constitution which pertain to privacy but say absolutely nothing about abortion. It makes no sense to claim that this mere expression somehow creates a right to more than what it is referring to, but that is exactly what Justice Blackman did.

I'm sure for liberal Democrats its a matter of priorities except for the minority which actually do support abortion. I imagine there were quite a few Democrats who did not agree with Obama when he said in his 2008 campaign that we should escalate the war in Afghanistan but most of them voted for him anyway because they favored national health care, infrastructure spending, etc.

I can guarantee you that the majority of female voters (unless they are Bible babbling believers) do NOT support a platform promoting " I am 100% pro life and believe life start at conception" while going on about promoting a legislation which would ban abortions across the nation. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of self declared Liberal Democrats do NOT support any notion of empowering the State to exercise a custodial role over pregnant women. Let alone, tossing out bodily integrity and the exclusive property rights over one's anatomy and choice of use of such anatomy. I can guarantee you that such self declared "Liberal democrats" comprehend quite well that such platform promoted by Rand Paul indicates that if he is engaged in a hands off government when it comes to private businesses, he has no qualm to will to empower the State to govern and legislate women's private and individual property of their own anatomy and its choice of use. "Liberal Democrats" frown upon such blatant violation of bodily integrity, a concept you appear to be totally oblivious too.

By you :The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion.

Oh please...you may not be aware of it, but we have evolved from "being with child" to at the "time of conception", there is scientifically demonstrated empirical evidence of the "time of conception" being :

https://www.google.com/search?q=bla...niv&sa=X&ei=LqR0VKTAO4SaNvLzg7AL&ved=0CDYQsAQ

You need to be informed that self declared "Liberal Democrats" are folks educated enough to the aware of the above while the vast majority of them do understand the difference between a"child" (Biblical term) and a blastocyst. You need to be informed that the 100% Pro Life position "from the time of conception" is most commonly found among conservative mainstream Christian denominations based on interpretation of scriptures. That you disagree with their interpretation of scriptures would necessitate a debate between you and a conservative Christian theist so you can point to "the Bible does not say anything about abortion".

The existing reality remains that self declared "Liberal democrats" are the opposite of anti science zealots, whether those anti science zealots are under religious influence or not.

Further and again, I seriously doubt you have had as much socialization and prolonged rapports with self declared "Liberal Democrats" as I have. Whether it be via Internet communications such as discussion boards or in RL. And mind you that my familiarity with liberal minded persons extends also far outside of the US.

I stand by what I stated : I am vividly interested in the "some on this board" (your words) who would be self declared "Liberal Democrats" attempting to conciliate their liberal stances with Rand Paul 's "100% pro life, from the time of conception" position. Position stated in the link I provided, formulated by his own words.

Rand Paul is NOT a liberal. He is like many other Libertarians, a mix of contradictions and inconsistencies.

 

[boneyard bill]

It doesn't bring up the right to an appendectomy either.

No one assumes that Rand Paul is somehow an across the board liberal.

Or really even mildly liberal.

But if you are concerned about our war-mongering foreign policy and the outrageous abuse of civil liberties, Rand Paul definitely is more liberal in those areas.

You mean more than Democrats, right?

Meanwhile, Paul will cut the budget.

Sure. With Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security growing in their influence on the total spending in the budget, it soon won't matter what cuts are made elsewhere as the other programs grow at a rate larger than the cuts.

But we're running deficits of a trillion dollars a year!

!

So there's a crying need to cut the budget, and Rand Paul wouldn't spare the defense budget as Hillary probably would.

Interesting. So Paul will get a budget passed that slashes the defense budget?

Rand Paul is a true liberal on a few issues. Hillary is a faux liberal on just about everything. Will some liberals vote for Rand Paul on that basis? The author of the OP article will and apparently so will some on this discussion board.

True. It is hard to tell if Clinton supports domestic drone strikes.

What is odd is that Paul is for the same type of policies that led to the '08 crash and then likely would have been against the immediately needed efforts to quell that crash.

I will ignore most of the smarmy and irrelevant comments. Why do you waste your time posting such drivel? But on your last post you've got it just reversed. The policies that led to the 08 crash are exactly what are being followed now only many times over. Bush created the real-estate bubble in order to truncate the recession caused by the dot.com bubble. Now Obama and the Fed have created a bond-market bubble, a stock market bubble, and a new mini real estate bubble. So the next crash is going to be even bigger than 08. And in the meantime we haven't even gotten a real recovery. At least Bush's bubble did create a phony boom.

 

[boneyard bill]

The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion.

Actually, in Numbers 5, god gives Moses instructions on how to perform an abortion.

Interesting. I hadn't heard of that. I'll have to look it up one of these days.

 

[boneyard bill]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/im-a-liberal-democrat-im_b_6169542.html

Here's one liberal Democrat who's so disaffected with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that he's ready to support Rand Paul for president in 2016. Anybody here think he's wrong?

Yes, of course, he is wrong. Libertarians are idealists. They believe in a Millieon, as in John Stuart Mill, world that is unrealistic. It is a fantasy.

Yes, we should be letting people out of prison who are there because they are black or who committed victimless crimes. But they are largely there because of the fear mongering in the past of Paul's party of choice, the Republicans. I don't see how voting for them would help these matters.

But should dangerous drugs be legalized as the Libertarians want to do? I would say not. I haven't taken illegal drugs myself, I was an officer in the Navy, a pilot, during that time in the 60's and 70's when drug use was common, but it doesn't take a drug user to realize that young people are basically stupid about long term risks and that drugs, even marijuana effects your concentration and cognitive abilities. It is better to continue to discourage their use, even if we stop imprisoning users.

And is the Libertarian attitude against any and all military actions realistic? Once again, I would say that it is not. Especially considering that they believe that mutually beneficial trade between countries with free market economies would make war unthinkable. This is a joke. The free market is an unobtainable fantasy, the never-neverland of economic thought. If you are willing to do it the justice of saying that it is the product of thought. It is the product of misplaced faith, less convincing than the tooth fairy with less evidence supporting it than there is for the Easter rabbit.

And trade has caused more wars than it could have prevented.

There is a middle ground where we don't have to support the conservatives' wars from mistakes and for profit and complete abandonment of our role as the last super power, the last bastion for good in the world. Sometimes war is justified, even if a half black, half white man is the one trying to justify it.

Once again, it is Paul's party of choice who mistakenly waged war, not the least because they had done nothing to prevent the largest terrorist attack in our country, against our citizens, even after they were warned.

And the author mentioned in passing that there are a few differences that he has with Paul's economics. Where to start. There is the fore mentioned problem that Paul's economics is based on a fantasy, the self-regulating free market. Or that the in addition to waging a mistaken war the other product of conservative governance that we have been subjected to recently was the second worst recession in the last century, brought about because of the faith in the fantasy of the self-regulating free market, this time in the financial mortgage market. Deregulation to the absurd. The belief that the participants in the financial mortgage market didn't need adult supervision, that even if they could make a lot of money by doing so that they would never intentionally destabilize the market, bringing the country's economy down with it. The conservatives were very wrong to put their faith in the fantasy. And they are still in denial that the fantasy of deregulation caused the recession. They are forced to concoct obvious lies to convince themselves that it wasn't the fantasy to blame.

And who depends more on the fantasy and the lies than your garden verity conservative? Yes, your bat sh*t crazy anarchist/libertarian, whose entire philosophy depends on the existence of the never before seen fantasy of the existence of the self-regulating, self-organizing free market. He is going to replace the government and its laws and regulations with the fantasy.

Is there a reason to vote for Rand Paul if you are a liberal? No, there is not.

Regarding foreign policy and drugs, what you have said is almost identical to what Rand Paul has said. He does not claim to be a libertarian although he does claim to support some libertarian ideas. Meanwhile, he has been one of the strongest supporters of civil liberties while Obama and Hillary Clinton have been among the worst in this area. Obama's NDAA is even worse than the Patriot Act which Hillary voted for. And Rand's famous filibuster was the direct result of the president's attorney-general failing to assert what everyone regards as obvious, the president does not have the authority to murder US citizen's on US soil. (The issuing of murdering US citizens NOT on US coil was not even brought up, but Obama is clearly guilty of that in the case of al Awaki and especially of his 16-year-old son who wasn't even accused of anything).

The de-regulation that you speak of (I assume you mean repeal of Glass-Steagel) was passed at the behest of Hillary Clinton's husband. So, if that was the cause of the 08 recession (which I don't think it was), then it was Hillary and her cronies, not Bush, who caused it.

 

[ksen]

Rand was against repealing glass-steagall?

 

[boneyard bill]

By me : And such "sanctity of life" (from the time of conception) minded "Liberal Democrats" and Libertarians would somehow not be influenced by their religious beliefs?Ah!You see Boneyardbill, a self declared "liberal Democrat" is not going to dismiss science for the sake of abiding to beliefs promoted by the Bible. Again, I will be vividly interested to see how "some on this board" self declared "liberal democrats" supporting Rand Paul will justify compatibility between opposing abortions based on the "sanctity of life" (just like Rand Paul) and being a "liberal Democrat".

By you : And if there is any doubt, it is surely preferable to choose a right to life over a right to privacy especially since the constitution says absolutely nothing about a right to privacy.

By me : Oh dear...now I have to rub your nose into the Bill of Rights :

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html

Never heard of how privacy rights have been extended over the course of several court precedents? Let me suggest you read the content of the link above.

Anyhow, so it is quite clear, my reply was not there for you to give me your opinion about terminating or pursuing a pregnancy. My reply was to point to the improbability of self declared "liberal Democrats" and especially "some on this board" to just sweep under the carpet Paul's stances on abortion. I have to wonder how many "liberal Democrats" you frequent and socialize with, especially "some on this board".

By you :From your own link:

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy.

As if I am not capable of comprehending the first sentence. However, contrary to you, I made the effort to read and comprehend the entirety of the article I submitted which confirms precedents of how Privacy Rights have been extended.

By you :The "right to privacy" is a shorthand expression for the 4th and 5th amendments and other provisions of the constitution which pertain to privacy but say absolutely nothing about abortion. It makes no sense to claim that this mere expression somehow creates a right to more than what it is referring to, but that is exactly what Justice Blackman did.

I'm sure for liberal Democrats its a matter of priorities except for the minority which actually do support abortion. I imagine there were quite a few Democrats who did not agree with Obama when he said in his 2008 campaign that we should escalate the war in Afghanistan but most of them voted for him anyway because they favored national health care, infrastructure spending, etc.

I can guarantee you that the majority of female voters (unless they are Bible babbling believers) do NOT support a platform promoting " I am 100% pro life and believe life start at conception" while going on about promoting a legislation which would ban abortions across the nation. I can guarantee you that the vast majority of self declared Liberal Democrats do NOT support any notion of empowering the State to exercise a custodial role over pregnant women. Let alone, tossing out bodily integrity and the exclusive property rights over one's anatomy and choice of use of such anatomy. I can guarantee you that such self declared "Liberal democrats" comprehend quite well that such platform promoted by Rand Paul indicates that if he is engaged in a hands off government when it comes to private businesses, he has no qualm to will to empower the State to govern and legislate women's private and individual property of their own anatomy and its choice of use. "Liberal Democrats" frown upon such blatant violation of bodily integrity, a concept you appear to be totally oblivious too.

By you :The Bible doesn't say anything about abortion.

Oh please...you may not be aware of it, but we have evolved from "being with child" to at the "time of conception", there is scientifically demonstrated empirical evidence of the "time of conception" being :

https://www.google.com/search?q=bla...niv&sa=X&ei=LqR0VKTAO4SaNvLzg7AL&ved=0CDYQsAQ

You need to be informed that self declared "Liberal Democrats" are folks educated enough to the aware of the above while the vast majority of them do understand the difference between a"child" (Biblical term) and a blastocyst. You need to be informed that the 100% Pro Life position "from the time of conception" is most commonly found among conservative mainstream Christian denominations based on interpretation of scriptures. That you disagree with their interpretation of scriptures would necessitate a debate between you and a conservative Christian theist so you can point to "the Bible does not say anything about abortion".

The existing reality remains that self declared "Liberal democrats" are the opposite of anti science zealots, whether those anti science zealots are under religious influence or not.

Further and again, I seriously doubt you have had as much socialization and prolonged rapports with self declared "Liberal Democrats" as I have. Whether it be via Internet communications such as discussion boards or in RL. And mind you that my familiarity with liberal minded persons extends also far outside of the US.

I stand by what I stated : I am vividly interested in the "some on this board" (your words) who would be self declared "Liberal Democrats" attempting to conciliate their liberal stances with Rand Paul 's "100% pro life, from the time of conception" position. Position stated in the link I provided, formulated by his own words.

Rand Paul is NOT a liberal. He is like many other Libertarians, a mix of contradictions and inconsistencies.

I stated that the Bible does not say anything about abortion as evidence that I do not derive my position from the Bible. It has nothing to do with what fundamentalist ministers say about it.

I do not claim that liberal democrats, even those who oppose abortion, will vote for Rand Paul due to his position on abortion. I said that they, like everyone else, will prioritize their decision. In this case it shouldn't be difficult. The president has very little ability to influence that issue. It is largely a matter for Congress to decide and secondarily for the courts. Republicans could have repealed Roe v. Wade a long time ago simply by stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction in this matter, but they never did it. The Supreme Court, even when it had a nine to nothing Republican majority, has not overturned Roe v. Wade. Every Republican president since Reagan has opposed abortion, but it hasn't been banned. So I don't think very many liberal democrats are shaking in their boots over fear that Republicans are going to proceed with repeal.

You many know more liberal democrats than I do at the moment since I know very few people who talk politics since I moved to Tallahassee, but I am 71 years old and have known liberal democrats all my life. So I know how they think. I especially know how those involved in politics think. They will prioritize their decisions as we all do.

As for women, married women tend to vote Republican, and I have not seen any polls which show that woman differ very much from men on the abortion issue. But on party voting, if you factor out the income factor, women do not favor either party particularly. Women have lower incomes and therefore tend to vote more for Democrats, but they do not appear to vote particularly according to "women's issues." Democrat efforts to exploit that issue in the recent elections proved to be disastrous.

- - - Updated - - -

Rand was against repealing glass-steagall?

Rand was not in elective politics at that time. I don't know where he stands on the issue.

 

[ksen]

I'm sure we could take a good guess

 

[laughing dog]

Mr. Paul plans to introduce a declaration of war against ISIL http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-to-introduce-resolution-declaring-war-on-isis/ .

 

[lpetrich]

LD's link titled: Rand Paul to introduce resolution declaring war on ISIS - CBS News

I followed it, and I found the original: Sen. Paul Releases Declaration of War Against Islamic State Rand Paul | United States Senator complete with the full text of his resolution.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ''Declaration of War against the Organization known as the Islamic State''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE.

(a) DECLARATION.-The state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the United States Constitution.

Some "pacifist".

 

[boneyard bill]

LD's link titled: Rand Paul to introduce resolution declaring war on ISIS - CBS News

I followed it, and I found the original: Sen. Paul Releases Declaration of War Against Islamic State Rand Paul | United States Senator complete with the full text of his resolution.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ''Declaration of War against the Organization known as the Islamic State''.

SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST THE ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE ISLAMIC STATE.

(a) DECLARATION.-The state of war between the United States and the organization referring to itself as the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has been thrust upon the United States, is hereby formally declared pursuant to Article I, section 8, clause 11, of the United States Constitution.

Some "pacifist".

Rand Paul has been running around the country ever since he got elected saying that he is not opposed to military interventions overseas, so where did you ever get the idea that he was a "pacifist?" As I understand it, his declaration of war proposal is also accompanied by a repeal of the Authorization of the use of military force that was passed after 9/11 and has been used by both Bush and Obama as justification for doing pretty much whatever they want. Paul's larger point here isn't that we should go after ISIS, although he has supported that from the beginning, his point is that Congress needs to authorize it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

LD's link titled: Rand Paul to introduce resolution declaring war on ISIS - CBS News

I followed it, and I found the original: Sen. Paul Releases Declaration of War Against Islamic State Rand Paul | United States Senator complete with the full text of his resolution.

Some "pacifist".

Rand Paul has been running around the country ever since he got elected saying that he is not opposed to military interventions overseas, so where did you ever get the idea that he was a "pacifist?" As I understand it, his declaration of war proposal is also accompanied by a repeal of the Authorization of the use of military force that was passed after 9/11 and has been used by both Bush and Obama as justification for doing pretty much whatever they want. Paul's larger point here isn't that we should go after ISIS, although he has supported that from the beginning, his point is that Congress needs to authorize it.

Wow, you are such a hypocrite! In any American thread, you rail against any perceived civil rights violation or lack of democracy. But it's okay for Russia to invade sovereign countries in Eastern Europe? How do you draw the line? Rand Paul is far from a liberal in America. But he would be considered a liberal compared to Russian politicans.

 

[boneyard bill]

Rand Paul has been running around the country ever since he got elected saying that he is not opposed to military interventions overseas, so where did you ever get the idea that he was a "pacifist?" As I understand it, his declaration of war proposal is also accompanied by a repeal of the Authorization of the use of military force that was passed after 9/11 and has been used by both Bush and Obama as justification for doing pretty much whatever they want. Paul's larger point here isn't that we should go after ISIS, although he has supported that from the beginning, his point is that Congress needs to authorize it.

Wow, you are such a hypocrite! In any American thread, you rail against any perceived civil rights violation or lack of democracy. But it's okay for Russia to invade sovereign countries in Eastern Europe? How do you draw the line? Rand Paul is far from a liberal in America. But he would be considered a liberal compared to Russian politicans.

What country did Russia invade? Technically they invaded Georgia after their troops were attacked but that's a long time ago. They did not invade Crimea. They had a treaty right to maintain troops there. John Kerry lied to the American public when he said Russia invaded.

I do not argue that Putin is some kind of humanitarian. No. He is a political boss, and also a solid Russian nationalist. But his actions do not suggest that he has territorial ambitions. He has only acted when provoked. WE are the provocateurs.

 

[laughing dog]

LD's link titled: Rand Paul to introduce resolution declaring war on ISIS - CBS News

I followed it, and I found the original: Sen. Paul Releases Declaration of War Against Islamic State Rand Paul | United States Senator complete with the full text of his resolution.

Some "pacifist".

Rand Paul has been running around the country ever since he got elected saying that he is not opposed to military interventions overseas, so where did you ever get the idea that he was a "pacifist?" As I understand it, his declaration of war proposal is also accompanied by a repeal of the Authorization of the use of military force that was passed after 9/11 and has been used by both Bush and Obama as justification for doing pretty much whatever they want. Paul's larger point here isn't that we should go after ISIS, although he has supported that from the beginning, his point is that Congress needs to authorize it.

This misses the larger issue that one of the reasons this alleged liberal gave for considering Rand Paul is "Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush." Certainly that declaration with its implied foreign interventionism appears inconsistent with that claim.