Bill Maher on Rand Paul
Posted by KevinSmith1281 11 years, 6 months ago to Politics
Rand Paul, probably the only R or D I could force myself to consider voting for in 2016
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
forever! He is repugnant.
together...straight into a jet propeller!!
I always saw Maher as a complete jerk.
Maher's point about empirialization is an interesting one. Although I agree I am done being the world's army, I maintain we were never about Empire like say a Russia, China, Britain. I think there 's a Rand quote on point. I' ll be back in a sec
Romney couldn't consistently support an idea as he would change his stance as the wind blows. Now where is the integrity in that? I can't support the Christian Right and all of their BS. I couldn't believe the libertarian party when Tom Delay became their candidate. Ayn Rand would hold her nose at the GOP and what it has degenerated to.
You are mistaken in your belief that we can draw down on our military defense budget without consequences. Your view would only be true as long as we were able to maintain the strongest military in order to quickly oppose any enemy. And let there be no mistake, we do have enemies as we are still the only really free nation on earth. By free in this instance I mean economically, politically i.e. free speech and free economic principles. At least that was true until the present administration took over.
In order to maintain the above strength we also need the military might to protect our allies. Western Europe is vulnerable to Russia as it has always been and now we have a rising power in the Pacific region, China. The danger of shrinking our military lies in the length of time required to gear up again if needed. keep in mind that at the beginning of WWII we were still flying bi-planes and barely had a few light tanks compared to Germany and Japan. At that time what protected us were the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans and gave us the necessary time to build up our industrial capacity to catch up. In the nuclear age we don't have such luxury.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Paul definitely has a good chance with younger voters if Hillary can be painted as BHO - just in a blue pantsuit. . . in 2 years, I think most people will be completely fed up with Obama & ready for someone who can articulate liberty well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-k8zBWLQ...
If you don't like the music, turn down the volume and just read the lyrics. Geddy Lee had a lot of passion about freedom and rational thinking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...
"With a mind that's not for rent, to any god or government" - a more true statement of Objectivist belief has never been put to music.
That's how we ended up with this moron for a second time. And it's going to bankrupt us.
You cannot attribute all disagreements with those who choose to associate with the same party affiliation. That's irrational.
When an avowed Socialist like Bill supports it, I look at why and usually avoid it.
The vast majority of our engagements around the world are for three things:
1) To prevent some Socialist or other type of dictator from "nationalizing" some industry - NOT buying them out, NOT asking them to leave, but simply STEALING it. We let that happen and the freedom our country has to do business around the world and the subsequent increase in our standard of living here in the states will drop precipitously as other nations follow suit due to our paper tiger responses.
2) We also get involved if our allies, economically intertwined in our interests, have similar problems, supporting them.
3) We then rebuild enough to prevent the same thing happening again. HOWEVER, if the Pauls mean to say we should stop doing all the other stuff we do...then I utterly agree. If it is not in the USA's interests, if it does not help us compete, then let's not do it.
No one told all the other nations to stop competing and they have no Pauls demanding that THEY stop competing in the world economically or otherwise.
Why would we stop?
Saying we must sacrifice freedom for our world involvement is simplistic, though true.
If we stop competing; if we stop delaying the conquering of Islam of their neighbors and their annexation of sections of countries (Chechnya as an obvious example), if we step out of the way of Socialists and Communists and stop impeding them, then, yes, the world would treat us nicer and we wouldn't need much of the security traded for our freedoms we now have.
We might not change our minds to put security first for decades, when they finally reach our shores with far greater resources at their disposal that we abandoned.
Not a good trade.
Foresight is an essential trait in a leader.
The Rands don't have it.
"a politician is an ass upon which everyone has sat except a man."