It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rand paul exposed!

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Rand Paul, not Ron Paul, wants a nuclear war with Iran to protect Israel. He wanted to go war with Afghanistan immediately and not weight a month like Dick Cheney did. Rand Paul also opposes closing down Guantanamo Bay.


What is Rand on, has the New World Order, Neo-cons got to him? Did I mention Sarah Palin supports him because he wanted war with Iran.


www.youtube.com...

[edit on 25-3-2010 by dino1989]




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
And you got this information from where again?
Gotta see the proof.

Thanks



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Hey! Cut it out!
Don't you know that you can't criticize the Sainted Pauls on ATS.
They are perfect, uncorruptable magical beings that are the only hope for
whatever.
Mind yer dogma, or reap the consequental scorn!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
here ya go

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
Might I suggest a bit more research than the Youtube video?

I may have missed it, but I didn't hear him say he wanted a nuclear war with Iran.

And the inclusion of Sarah Palin in the video doesn't inspire me with confidence about the content... (did you hear her?) she didn't say she was speaking on behalf of Rand Paul.

In either case... these are all just political celebrities performing as their directors tell them. They don't think, they don't know.., they simply act as a thespian does..... each audience gets their own 'show.'



[edit on 25-3-2010 by Maxmars]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Rand Paul is lying.

He's saying what he has to say in order to get elected.

He is a politician after all


Looking at his past history of comments on the war, he's VERY careful about the phraseology he uses.

When a person truly believes in limited government (and I know Rand does), they can not accept unjustified lengthly wars. Remember, Ron Paul voted in favor of taking out Bin Laden. If a target is specified and we have a clearly defined goal, that's one thing. However Ron Paul is AGAINST the war in Afghanistan right now because it has turned into a nation building / looting effort.

So read between the lines when Rand talks - that's all I have to say.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   
weight a month?...
how much, exactly, does a month weigh? LOL


anyways...

all republicans seem to be hardcore christian/catholic and most of them want israel to fight the war to end all wars.. to spark the return of jesus.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
weight a month?...
how much, exactly, does a month weigh? LOL


anyways...

all republicans seem to be hardcore christian/catholic and most of them want israel to fight the war to end all wars.. to spark the return of jesus.


Rand is a libertarian in a republican suit.

A tad different than your run of the mill neocon.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Rand is a libertarian in a republican suit.

A tad different than your run of the mill neocon.



So in Ron, I guess... but he doesn't want war. Which is why he will never win presidency...

But if American can get him on as a VP, that might work..
But what does a VP do anyways? btw, Biden doesn't count.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Rand is a libertarian in a republican suit.

A tad different than your run of the mill neocon.



So in Ron, I guess... but he doesn't want war. Which is why he will never win presidency...

But if American can get him on as a VP, that might work..
But what does a VP do anyways? btw, Biden doesn't count.


The VP was originally intended to be the presidents foil.

The way our system was initially setup, the VP was the opposition party candidate. So McCain would have been the VP I believe if the original system was still in use.

The VP is the tie breaker in Congress.

So if a vote is split 50/50 the VP will vote break the difference.

The president has veto power.

Thus you can see why the VP was originally chosen from the opposition party - because if you have a tie vote in Congress, the VP could make it pass, but the president could veto it, and vice versa.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Rand Paul is from Kentucky, of course he is a Christian. You wont get elected on a Republican ticket if youre anything but.

I attempted to watch the youtube video, but quit at the half way mark, the editing was really overboard. I like my news like I enjoy all my information, raw and uncut so I can filter it myself.

Anyway, I was wondering why Rand Paul is clogging my commercials, now I know.

Was this video an expose of typical Republican ideologies? Arent conservatives generally hawkish and liberals generally dovish?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by dino1989
Rand Paul, not Ron Paul, wants a nuclear war with Iran to protect Israel. He wanted to go war with Afghanistan immediately and not weight a month like Dick Cheney did. Rand Paul also opposes closing down Guantanamo Bay.


What is Rand on, has the New World Order, Neo-cons got to him? Did I mention Sarah Palin supports him because he wanted war with Iran.


www.youtube.com...

[edit on 25-3-2010 by dino1989]


And that little video that you linked is your proof? Really?

Errrrmmmm.....Sorry to break it to you my friend but you are going to get tore apart even if people DON'T support either of the Paul's.

He never once said nuclear war. Then you make the statement that Sarah supports him because he wants war with Iran.

Dude, he mentions Afghanistan and protecting Israel from a nuclear strike. Sarah then talks about protecting Israel. The only thing that tied the two together is that you SAY that she supports him.

They show clips of Obama saying Iran is a big threat. Is he tied to Palin and thus Rand Paul now too?

You see, these montage clips are old news here. Yes, I do think they can express clear statements made by each of the people but to pick one sentence from one town hall meeting and then show another sentence from an interview and tie them together is called twisting their words into something else.

Sorry, I think you may be off the mark.

Or better put, you may be right but this was the wrong way to go about proving it.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Rand Paul is from Kentucky, of course he is a Christian. You wont get elected on a Republican ticket if youre anything but.

I attempted to watch the youtube video, but quit at the half way mark, the editing was really overboard. I like my news like I enjoy all my information, raw and uncut so I can filter it myself.

Anyway, I was wondering why Rand Paul is clogging my commercials, now I know.

Was this video an expose of typical Republican ideologies? Arent conservatives generally hawkish and liberals generally dovish?


no

liberals generally start wars, conservatives have historically ended them.

today, both parties are a bunch of war mongers.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I don't care about such trivial interpretations of his positions- a new face in the senate is a new face in the senate. Any change in the Senate is good change at this point.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I'm sorry the reactions here are just hilarious. So when it's anti-government insanity YouTube is a perfectly good source and most will jump on the bandwagon, but oh the moment a member of the Paul family is criticized, YouTube isn't worth the pixels on your screen.

Way to go hypocrites! Mnemeth1, come on mate seriously? I never thought I'd see you being the kind to bend over backwards to kiss a politician's backside but wow, you're pretty flexible. It takes a lot of faith in a political official to buy a Noble Lie on his behalf, let alone to just create the idea that there is one in your head.

I for one will freely admit my bias: I am a socialist, libertarians are diametrically opposed to my political beliefs. They are not wrong all of the time, but their goals for society and mine are very different in the end. As for the other think Rand Paul might be, I find Neo-Cons disgusting slimeballs. Either way, I'm not about to come out and ravingly support his run here.

But hey, I am honest about it, I don't like the guy. Now I am just going to sit back and watch all of his supporters who gush about him out of one side of their mouth while screaming hysterics about revolution out of the other. Let's see how badly they all can trip over themselves to be the number one fanboy.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


I'm not bending over backward, I'm looking at his statements in the press.

I'm also looking at the statements released by his father.

There is a reason why he is so particular about the words he uses. He's particular because he doesn't like lying.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Rand Paul is lying.

He's saying what he has to say in order to get elected.

He is a politician after all


Looking at his past history of comments on the war, he's VERY careful about the phraseology he uses.

When a person truly believes in limited government (and I know Rand does), they can not accept unjustified lengthly wars. Remember, Ron Paul voted in favor of taking out Bin Laden. If a target is specified and we have a clearly defined goal, that's one thing. However Ron Paul is AGAINST the war in Afghanistan right now because it has turned into a nation building / looting effort.

So read between the lines when Rand talks - that's all I have to say.



Say what now? So he doesn't like lying but he is lying to get elected so that he can do things that are counter to the things he said in his campaign? And you, mister anti-government are for this. Incredible.

Wow, and you guys give Obama supporters a hard time for believing in him so much.

There is not a mirror big enough to show you your hypocritical self righteousness.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
I'm sorry the reactions here are just hilarious. So when it's anti-government insanity YouTube is a perfectly good source and most will jump on the bandwagon, but oh the moment a member of the Paul family is criticized, YouTube isn't worth the pixels on your screen.

Way to go hypocrites! Mnemeth1, come on mate seriously? I never thought I'd see you being the kind to bend over backwards to kiss a politician's backside but wow, you're pretty flexible. It takes a lot of faith in a political official to buy a Noble Lie on his behalf, let alone to just create the idea that there is one in your head.

I for one will freely admit my bias: I am a socialist, libertarians are diametrically opposed to my political beliefs. They are not wrong all of the time, but their goals for society and mine are very different in the end. As for the other think Rand Paul might be, I find Neo-Cons disgusting slimeballs. Either way, I'm not about to come out and ravingly support his run here.

But hey, I am honest about it, I don't like the guy. Now I am just going to sit back and watch all of his supporters who gush about him out of one side of their mouth while screaming hysterics about revolution out of the other. Let's see how badly they all can trip over themselves to be the number one fanboy.




Do you know Rand Paul's stance on even half of the problems facing this country? Obviously not, or you wouldn't refer to him as a neo-con. Thanks for pointing out that you are a socialist, which explains your distaste for the Paul Family.

I like what the above poster said about just saying whatever he needs to say to get elected, then really getting serious. Or it's just a diatribe of an editing job.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Lets look at his issues page:

"I believe that when we must fight, we declare war as the Constitution mandates and we fight to win. That we fight only under US Commander and not the UN."

Notice, if he really took that position - he would be against both wars as neither have had official declarations issued by the Congress, nor does either war have explicitly defined "goals" that can be won.

Before the National Defense issue was updated it read like this:

"After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy.

But, any military action that takes more than a few days or weeks to organize and is directed against a country’s government should require a declaration of war. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Congress met and declared war within 24hrs.

Congress has had plenty of time to declare war on Afghanistan and Iraq. As a member of Congress, Dr. Rand Paul would have demanded and voted in the affirmative for a declaration of war with Afghanistan. He would demand and voted against a declaration of war with Iraq."

- again, that states exactly what I just said.

That is what he really believes.

He has since changed his site to sound more hawkish, but its all a show.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I'm not at all denying your analysis of the situation, you are probably right. What I am finding so funny here is that you are supporting this. This is a classic case of a Platonic Noble Lie, and it is exactly the kind of thing that libertarians and conservatives, yourself included have screamed yourself raw about Democrats doing for years.

So just tell me one thing, how does it feel, to defend a politician lying to his constituents?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join