I would love to vote for General McCrystal just because I’m naughty like that.

Foreign policy is one of the best issues to attract young people and more liberal people. Having someone who can properly explain the difference between isolationism and non-interventionalism on the national stage is extremely important. If someone can actually reach liberals who have similar foreign policy and civil liberty beliefs as we do, and make them understand economic freedom and property rights are essential to their beliefs being practical, a lot of liberals could probably see the light.

Such comments from someone as obviously progressive as Bill Maher because he's always reaching for his younger audience just serves to tell us how important Rand Paul is becoming within that demographic. Yea for liberty.

I find the ad hominem direction of the discussion disturbing. I disagree with Maher most of the time, but I agree with him about Rand Paul and atheism. At least he has seen this much light. Who knows, maybe Maher will see more light later and join us.

That's about the only sensible thing Bill Maher has said in a long time. I did not know foreign policy was that important to him. Would he really put it above domestic policy? After all: Rand Paul would stand the government down from almost everything it does today.

Can't agree.
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.

I think I threw up a little at the idea I may agree with Maher about something . . .

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.

I honestly believe that if the GOP wants to win the WH, they will have to put forth someone relatively new ... someone who has never run for president before, someone who is a Constitutionalist, a great debater and someone with military service. The people have had about enough of lack of experience.

The thing that has me worried about Rand Paul is that he has backed Mitch McConnell for reelection. That in itself is enough to put me off Paul. Also, for whatever reason, for me he smacks too much of the old guard GOP. JMHO.

I understand that his family is in broadcasting, and that's how he got into it. IIRC, they were some higher-ups at NBC. That would guarantee him a job at any of their affiliates. He certainly doesn't have the talent to make a career on his own.

Bill Maher, Michael Moore and Steven Kolbert. All birds of a feather. I think they should all shut up.

When you say 'ass', are you talking the "whole ass", or just the )*(
I always saw Maher as a complete jerk.

Can't stand Bill Maher, myself. You're correct about Rand Paul, in that he can think rapid fire, logically and respond without sounding pompous.

The field is limited. Unfortunately each election cycle the best and the brightest end sit it out.

no kidding. ;)

I agree. "Smarmy" comes to mind....

I always like Ron Paul too, I'm just not as sold on Rand as I am on Ron. I agree with you on why I'm not a Republican, social conservatives (thought I do agree with them on abortion, but for different reasons)... but I think the military industrial complex has control of the Democrats just as much. Rand Paul has shown an ability to get thrown a loaded progressive question, and throw it right back in their faces. He comes off as sure of himself and of his beliefs and also quick witted, but not snarky like a lot of progressives do. Debate moderators would have a hard time helping the progressive candidates as much as they normally do, because Rand would likely completely flip their loaded question on their own heads. By the way, I can't stand Bill Maher either, the funniest thing about him is that he's referred to himself as a libertarian.

One reason I am no longer a Republican is the social conservatives. Another is the military industrial complex. We can draw down our defense budget without hurting our ability to defend ourselves or hurt our ability to respond around the globe.

I don't think it is just his warped view of the world. I really don't like the man.

I would like it if Bill Maher would just go away -
forever! He is repugnant.