Rand Paul wants to increase defense spending now that he's running for President

[dblack]

Rand Paul has gone total politician.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well there should have been no question that Rand was going to become more and more hawkish and flip flop on past positions as he gets closer to announcing his run for President, and he's lived up to that expectation.

Sen. Rand Paul Offers Amendment to Boost Defense Spending

After signing the Cotton letter to derail diplomacy with Iran and now wanting to increase wasteful Defense spending, it's hard to see what anybody interested in a rational foreign policy could possibly support in Rand Paul.

well he does caucus w/ the party that relies on *cough* "defense" contractors to fill their campaign chests. Aint Citizens United grand rw'ers?

And uber-hawk Hillary isn't going to get any of that money, right?

ummm..... who said anything about hillary? I'm not a voter representing the duopoly. I vote AGAINST the duopoly.

You called out one party for being on the war contractors' payroll, and Hillary is an example of the other party also being on their payroll. Both Democrats and Republicans benefit politically from the constant state of war, so calling out one over the other is dumb.

Your OP is about someone who caucus' w/ the Repubs does he not? As I was saying...

Yes, and you made a point about how the Republicans are the party in the pocket of war contractors, implying that Democrats aren't. You were obviously incorrect.

 

[dblack]

So? The left lies their ass off during elections, blatant lies, big whopper lies like "if you like your plan and doctor you can keep them, period". Turn about is fair play don't you think? I'm for using all the lefts slimy gutter tactics, level the playing field.

You truly are a ridiculous partisan hack.

Those darned partisan hacks!

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm just curious - Rand Paul supporters, what is it about him you support and do you have any confidence that he will still hold that position tomorrow?

 

[kaz]

Well there should have been no question that Rand was going to become more and more hawkish and flip flop on past positions as he gets closer to announcing his run for President, and he's lived up to that expectation.

Sen. Rand Paul Offers Amendment to Boost Defense Spending

After signing the Cotton letter to derail diplomacy with Iran and now wanting to increase wasteful Defense spending, it's hard to see what anybody interested in a rational foreign policy could possibly support in Rand Paul.

well he does caucus w/ the party that relies on *cough* "defense" contractors to fill their campaign chests. Aint Citizens United grand rw'ers?

Oh God, the hypocrisy reeks

kaz "chimes-in" That all you got kiddo? an ad hom?

Repubs and their drone voters falling for this for the last 15 or so yrs:

Attack now and worry about consequences later? You mean like Libya? Wasn't that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debacle? How about Yemen? Seems like stupid interventions are bipartisan to me.

please list which military units were deployed on the ground there. I'm not talking about covert ops or spooks either. I'm talking about regular ground troops. I'll wait

So bombing people doesn't matter? Only boots "on the ground?" Where did that standard come from? What a load of crap

 

[kaz]

Oh God, the hypocrisy reeks

kaz "chimes-in" That all you got kiddo? an ad hom?

Hypocrisy is a clearly relevant point. It means it isn't actually a standard for you, you are ... wait for it ... lying.

I do like the cartoons that support my position though as if that's somehow an argument against me. I want out of the endless wars and I want to slash defense spending not increase it. I guess you were too busy posting to read what you have been responding to.

However, even though we are on the same side, when you make disingenuous arguments, that doesn't help.

What an idiot...

followed by some blather & another ad hom. You are consistent. I'll give you that.

Paul sidled-up to the def contractors/pentagone because its what Repubs do. Its no big secret.

Wow, the hypocrisy reeks. Democrats are right there with him. You are a shill

except this thread isn't about "the democrats" shit stain, as much as you'd like it to be. Here's a little bit of advice: "deflecting" is not a debating technique. You're welcome.

Pointing out your hypocrisy is not "deflecting." It is directly relevant to the discussion as it clearly shows your attacks are completely disingenuous. This isn't a standard you care about since you don't do it yourself

 

[Dot Com]

well he does caucus w/ the party that relies on *cough* "defense" contractors to fill their campaign chests. Aint Citizens United grand rw'ers?

Oh God, the hypocrisy reeks

kaz "chimes-in" That all you got kiddo? an ad hom?

Repubs and their drone voters falling for this for the last 15 or so yrs:

Attack now and worry about consequences later? You mean like Libya? Wasn't that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debacle? How about Yemen? Seems like stupid interventions are bipartisan to me.

please list which military units were deployed on the ground there. I'm not talking about covert ops or spooks either. I'm talking about regular ground troops. I'll wait

And if that were the only consideration then you might have a point. How much money was wasted in Libya? How many innocent lives lost due to the bombing and subsequent civil war and tribal genocide that occurred because the U.S. destabilized the country? What interventions will come from the U.S., meaning more money and more lives wasted, in an attempt to clean up the mess that was caused by the initial interventions? The U.S. attacked those countries with no thought or care to the consequences, and those are Democrats.

money wasted? Compared to vietraq? A pittance. Your point?

BTW- "looking the other way" in re: dictators isn't an attribute. I can't believe I had to tell you that

 

[Dot Com]

a lot of Republican-lites (libertarians) posting in this thread. NEWSFLASH!!! You people aren't libertarians if you vote Repub. You're welcome

Are there any REAL libertarians on this board as opposed to Repub fluffers?

 

[Dot Com]

Well there should have been no question that Rand was going to become more and more hawkish and flip flop on past positions as he gets closer to announcing his run for President, and he's lived up to that expectation.

In an olive branch to defense hawks hell-bent on curtailing his White House ambitions, the libertarian Senator introduced a budget amendment late Wednesday calling for a nearly $190 billion infusion to the defense budget over the next two years—a roughly 16 percent increase.

Sen. Rand Paul Offers Amendment to Boost Defense Spending

After signing the Cotton letter to derail diplomacy with Iran and now wanting to increase wasteful Defense spending, it's hard to see what anybody interested in a rational foreign policy could possibly support in Rand Paul.

He'd probably be marginally better than most Republicans and all the Democrats. But he's done nothing to convince me he wants to radically transform government which government badly needs. To your point, this doesn't help

He's certainly no Lindsey Graham or Hillary Clinton on foreign policy, but it seems the closer we get to the actual election the more hawkish he's going to become. The only issue that comes to mind that he hasn't waffled on so far is his opposition to NSA spying, but I imagine it's only a matter of time. It's just not possible to believe him on what he says today when you see how willing he is to change his mind and then lie about past positions tomorrow.

This is why the two-party false paradigm is a sham. It forces people like Ran & Bernie to caucus w/ the duopoly and rely on their entrenched infrastructure or be shut out of national races.

And it forces you to attack the other side for things your own party does and you are silent on that. No wait, you aren't forced to do that, you do it on your own...

I'm not a member of any party kool aid boi. Any other misconceptions I can clear up for you?

Back to topic: Rand taking Establ Repub/defense (offense ) contractor money

 

[kaz]

a lot of Republican-lites (libertarians) posting in this thread. NEWSFLASH!!! You people aren't libertarians if you vote Repub. You're welcome

Are there any REAL libertarians on this board as opposed to Repub fluffers?

I voted Republican once in the last six Presidential elections. Regardless, I can't imagine any possible way the opinion of a Marxist whether I am actually libertarian or not would be relevant in the slightest

 

[kaz]

I'm not a member of any party kool aid boi. Any other misconceptions I can clear up for you kiddo?

Your mindlessly intoning the Democratic party line on every issue then saying you don't is irrelevant. And you're doing it here in a thread the Democrats are the same. LOL, you are a tool, Chuckie

 

[kaz]

I'm just curious - Rand Paul supporters, what is it about him you support and do you have any confidence that he will still hold that position tomorrow?

Yet for Obama and the Democrats this isn't an issue for you...

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'm just curious - Rand Paul supporters, what is it about him you support and do you have any confidence that he will still hold that position tomorrow?

Yet for Obama and the Democrats this isn't an issue for you...

Are you a Paul supporter?

 

[kaz]

No. What is the relevance to that and your overt double standard regarding Republicans and Democrats and flip flopping?

 

[nodoginnafight]

No. What is the relevance to that and your overt double standard regarding Republicans and Democrats and flip flopping?

Then butt out - I wasn't talking to you.

 

[kaz]

No. What is the relevance to that and your overt double standard regarding Republicans and Democrats and flip flopping?

Then butt out - I wasn't talking to you.

You may want to learn what a message board is. Amazing after 11K plus posts you don't know. Were you looking for a chat room and got lost?

 

[nodoginnafight]

So, any PAUL SUPPORTERS like to answer? What do you support about him and can you be certain he will hold those positions tomorrow?

 

[dblack]

a lot of Republican-lites (libertarians) posting in this thread. NEWSFLASH!!! You people aren't libertarians if you vote Repub. You're welcome

Are there any REAL libertarians on this board as opposed to Repub fluffers?

Yes

 

[BluesLegend]

So? The left lies their ass off during elections, blatant lies, big whopper lies like "if you like your plan and doctor you can keep them, period". Turn about is fair play don't you think? I'm for using all the lefts slimy gutter tactics, level the playing field.

So you're a partisan hack, in other words. This thread isn't about whether Republicans are better than Democrats, or vice versa. It's a thread about a particular candidate who has shown that he has no principles and is willing to say whatever he feels he has to in an attempt to get a chance at becoming President.

Again so what? Compared to liberals non-stop lying Paul is a saint.

I'm afraid that's not how sainthood works. Rand Paul is a fraud, and the fact that Democratic politicians are also frauds doesn't change that fact.

I'd take Paul over anyone in the Democratic party, if he has to play by the left's rules to win so be it if that avoids another Obama disaster.

Prime example of how hyper-partisanship works. "I don't care what he does or supports as long as he has an R (or a D) behind his name."

There are folks who are drunk on both flavors of Kool-Aid and it's not very good for our nation.

You might have a point except that Democrats have proved themselves to be lying low life scum these past 6 years.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Oh God, the hypocrisy reeks

kaz "chimes-in" That all you got kiddo? an ad hom?

Repubs and their drone voters falling for this for the last 15 or so yrs:

Attack now and worry about consequences later? You mean like Libya? Wasn't that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debacle? How about Yemen? Seems like stupid interventions are bipartisan to me.

please list which military units were deployed on the ground there. I'm not talking about covert ops or spooks either. I'm talking about regular ground troops. I'll wait

And if that were the only consideration then you might have a point. How much money was wasted in Libya? How many innocent lives lost due to the bombing and subsequent civil war and tribal genocide that occurred because the U.S. destabilized the country? What interventions will come from the U.S., meaning more money and more lives wasted, in an attempt to clean up the mess that was caused by the initial interventions? The U.S. attacked those countries with no thought or care to the consequences, and those are Democrats.

money wasted? Compared to vietraq? A pittance. Your point?

BTW- "looking the other way" in re: dictators isn't an attribute. I can't believe I had to tell you that

That more money has been wasted elsewhere is irrelevant. Money was wasted in Libya by Democrats, and their intervention has led to genocide and civil war, which is not to mention the innocent lives lost during the actual bombing itself. And Libya is just one example.

Looking the other way in regards to dictators sucks, but it sure beats removing a dictator to open the way for civil war and genocide. How many times does that scenario have to play out? Furthermore, it ignores the fact that plenty of dictators are close personal friends to people like Obama and Hillary. See their moving words about the brutal dictator who just died in Saudi Arabia.