Rand Paul

Guess Which Party Says Rand Paul 'Blames America' (Seriously, Guess)

|

Rand Paul
Gage Skidmore / Wikimedia Commons

Pop quiz: Which political party's press secretary put out a press release today that criticizes Sen. Rand Paul because he "blames America…on foreign soil" and subscribes to a radical isolationist policy that would "make American less safe and secure"?

Read the whole thing before you find out if your guess is right:

It's disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This week he's blaming the Obama Administration for another nation's civil war. That type of "blame America" rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul's proposals would make America less safe and less secure.

Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be—The Rand Paul Doctrine:  Blame America. Retreat from the World.

And the answer is…the Democrats. The above statement comes from DNC National Press Secretary Michael Czin. You would be forgiven for thinking otherwise; this is the exact criticism that Republicans have hurled at both Democrats and members of the Paul family for years. But with Rand Paul as the likely Republican presidential contender and interventionist Hillary Clinton as his likely opponent, the absurdities of party politics demand a switching of the unhinged attacks.

Here is an excerpt from Paul's op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, which prompted Czin's reply:

To interventionists like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, we would caution that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria created a haven for the Islamic State. We are lucky Mrs. Clinton didn't get her way and the Obama administration did not bring about regime change in Syria. That new regime might well be ISIS.

This is not to say the U.S. should ally with Assad. But we should recognize how regime change in Syria could have helped and emboldened the Islamic State, and recognize that those now calling for war against ISIS are still calling for arms to factions allied with ISIS in the Syrian civil war. We should realize that the interventionists are calling for Islamic rebels to win in Syria and for the same Islamic rebels to lose in Iraq. While no one in the West supports Assad, replacing him with ISIS would be a disaster.

Our Middle Eastern policy is unhinged, flailing about to see who to act against next, with little thought to the consequences. This is not a foreign policy….

But the same is true of hawkish members of my own party. Some said it would be "catastrophic" if we failed to strike Syria. What they were advocating for then—striking down Assad's regime—would have made our current situation even worse, as it would have eliminated the only regional counterweight to the ISIS threat.

Our so-called foreign policy experts are failing us miserably. The Obama administration's feckless veering is making it worse. It seems the only thing both sides of this flawed debate agree on is that "something" must be done. It is the only thing they ever agree on.

But the problem is, we did do something. We aided those who've contributed to the rise of the Islamic State. The CIA delivered arms and other equipment to Syrian rebels, strengthening the side of the ISIS jihadists. Some even traveled to Syria from America to give moral and material support to these rebels even though there had been multiple reports some were allied with al Qaeda.

As evidenced above, Paul is consistent in his foreign policy opinions, unlike many Democrats or his fellow Republicans. Expect more soundbite switcheroo as campaign season gears up.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

348 responses to “Guess Which Party Says Rand Paul 'Blames America' (Seriously, Guess)

  1. Is it just me or is the memory span of the average American getting shorter?

    Do people today really not remember the debates that were going on 8 years ago? Or are the two TEAMs just pretending like people don’t remember?

    1. I think more the former, although ‘murcans have never been great at looking back to even recent history. Me included – I’ve failed on some occasions.

      All the more reason you’d think people would learn – but few seem to.

      Fuck both TEAMS!

    2. I don’t think people remember the debate going on last year about Syria, let alone before the Iraq War.

      1. People don’t remember Syria because Obama didn’t do stupid shit there.

        1. Obama didn’t do stupid shit there.

          Well aside from arming ISIS.

          1. And then flipping and supporting Assad.

        2. Sending aid to the Islamist doesn’t count as stupid? How fucking stupid are you?

          1. How fucking stupid are you?

            Do you really need to ask when Shreek goes out of his way to prove it every day?

            1. Shreek is still a few precious IQ points above Tony.

              1. Yeah, those two points are the difference between indiscrimantly flinging shit everywhere and indiscriminantly rubbing shit into your own mustache.

              2. But he’s still a turd.

              3. Shreek is Tony. The Borg is the Borg.

          2. They are all Islamists over there and we have sent aid to them all in the past.

            Remember Rummy and Cheney’s lover’s nuts for Saddam?

            1. And that makes Obama doing it somehow better? If anything the obvious failure of that policy in the past makes Obama’s choice to try it again look even more foolish.

              1. Don’t be silly. This time we had the right top men in place. Any evidence suggesting policies failed only demonstrates how we didn’t let our top men go far enough.

              2. Don’t try to glean a point from what dipshit says. It’s all non sequiturs.

        3. Aside from announcing red lines, announcing that the red lines had been crossed, announcing that the US would do something about it, and then being stopped from doing something by Congress, Obama did nothing at all stupid there.

          1. Obama knew Congress wouldn’t approve doing anything. That’s why he for once, said he needed the approval from Congress. He saw the polls like everyone else did and it was very clear that there was no support from the American public.

            So Obama effectively did nothing but run his mouth, as intended. ‘Hey look, I uh, tried to ummm, do something, but Congress wouldn’t uhh, let me!’ LMAO

            1. Actually the best thing Obama did in the whole debacle was accept the opportunity to save face.

              But all the earlier mouthing off looks really stupid now that Assad is on the US side against the new loons.

        4. Obama didn’t do stupid shit there.

          Only because Putin bailed him out.

          1. Putin and Rand Paul.

            Paul held up Obama by demanding that he get congressional approval.

            Held him up long enough for the more “sane” policy Putin put forth.

            Seriously when Putin is the holder of the ‘sane’ policy you know you are fucked.

        5. Re: Peter Caca,

          People don’t remember Syria because Obama didn’t do stupid shit there

          It is not like he didn’t try, though.

        6. Turd.Burglar.

        7. Sending military and logistical aid to ISIS was super unstupid. Good point.

        8. Obama doesn’t do anything. He just says stupid.

        9. I would argue arming the rebels has caused needless violence and bloodshed, and as such could be considered stupid.

    3. The US has always been at war with the Syrian rebels and ISIS.

      Citizen, you require doublethink re-education. Report to Minitrue for your orientation.

      — O’Brien

    4. The rank and file TEAM blue members will never read this.

      It is targeted at Republicans and Independents and the DNC trying to get them to switch over to warhawk Hilary.

      I think with independents it will back fire…but it will probably work with all the neocons among the republicans.

      What is really scary is that at first Bush was a “quite foreign policy” guy. It took 9/11 to get him to become a warhawk. Hillary and the DNC filing in behind her are full warhawk more then two years before the election.

      When (if?) she is elected I expect nothing less then WW3.

      1. There is NFW any Republican is going to flip for Hillary. Ever.

        1. People like Frum and Bolton and Brooks already have.

          1. Frum and Brooks are thoroughly discredited as far as the right-wing intelligentsia is concerned. No one cares what Bolton thinks even if they secretly covet his mustache.

            1. Is that why he’s a regular on The Independents?

              1. That’s because he works for Fox and they enjoy whaling on him.

          2. Brooks has been considered a Team Blue dick slurper for the past 10 years now.

            Frum is considered bat shit crazy.

            Neither of them has much of a following on Team Red. Most of Team Red would not vote for “her thighness” if you even if you kidnapped their mother and held her for ransom. Its a Red thing.

            1. Brooks has been considered a Team Blue dick slurper for the past 10 years now.

              Cue Brooksy taking ten inches of Hillary whitesnake with an awkward, gagging smile…then begging for more.

        2. She has a certain appeal to neoconservatives and if people think Rand isn’t bomby enough, they may just ponder the switch.

          1. She is kinda like Nixon in drag, all haunted and craven.

            1. Hey Nixon wore a pantsuit too as I recall.

      2. What is really scary is that at first Bush was a “quite foreign policy” guy.

        No he wasn’t. He was gearing up to confront China. We forget that now since that confrontation died along with 3,000 people in an explosion of jet fuel and concrete dust.

        1. I don’t recall him saying shit about it in the 2000 election and doing shit about between Jan 2000 and Sept 2001.

          He ran a quiet guy campaign and before 9/11 he was a quiet guy.

          Hilary is screaming for war two fucking years before the election.

          1. Bush Jr. ran against Gore based on: 1. Not fucking up our economy by signing Kyoto., 2. Improving relations with Mexico, 3. working out more “free trade” deals, 4. cutting costs and regulations (all candidates say this though). As I recall he is fluent in Spanish and he ran on a kinder, gentler, internationalist kind of platform. We had just had the end of the Cold War and Clinton’s budget surpluses and everything looked very rosy if we could avoid Gore’s stupidity. Then 9/11 happened.

          2. Bush was a puppet for his corporate and warmongering masters. Period. He hardly has traveled abroad and surely didn’t know shit…about anything other than baseball.

            As you’ll remember, he lost the popular vote and then was installed by his GOP allies on the SCOTUS.

            Thinking that GW has the capability for deep thinking is your first mistake. There is no there there.

      3. I hate to say it, but we might be in WWIII now.

        1. Could be – and if so, it’s Russia firing the first shots, not some desert nomads.

    5. My favorite is the “whatever-very-important- issue-that’s facing- the -nation and look at these pictures of the president playing golf/on vacation/cutting back brush on the farm/ hunting!! It’s shameful!” Seriously, when these stories no longer create traffic and views then we will be headed in the right direction as an electorate.

    6. Sorry….what was it you were saying?

    7. I remember one party where the vast majority held up their hands when asked whether they believe in fairy tales (creationism)….

      that was a hoot!

    8. Sebastian . I just agree… Helen `s artlclee is astonishing, I just bought Chevrolet when I got my cheque for $6747 this-last/month and would you believe, ten k last-month . without a doubt it is the nicest work Ive had . I actually started 8-months ago and straight away made myself over $78, p/h .
      100% free registration——- http://www.jobsfish.com

  2. Even John hasnt said that about Rand. Do they think people cant distinguish Rand from Ron. Even if that criticism of Ron was bullshit too.

    1. Either one of the Pauls would have abandoned our boys in the iragi desert and left them to their fates with the Iragis and ISIS.

      The Pauls might as well change their last name to Hitler.

      YEAH, I SAID IT.

      /whoever hates the Pauls

      1. Hitler ‘n’ Ron (Good name for a blog site)

        1. Or a morning radio show.

    2. “On Wednesday, a federal investigation in Iowa forced a state senator there to plead guilty to obstruction of justice charges stemming from $73,000 in bribes he admitted taking from Rep. Ron Paul’s campaign in 2012.”

      Let’s see……the other Senator of his party from his state is likely to get caught up in this. His dad’s campaign folks are obviously criminals – in addition to being racists, etc…..

      Now you are trying to move Dad and Sonny boy apart as if Sonny didn’t get in on the coattails of Dad….

  3. This week he’s blaming the Obama Administration for another nation’s civil war.

    Because sectarian wars didn’t happen in the Middle East before 2009! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT!

    1. You, apparently, don’t think they happened anywhere under any admin. before 2001, moron.

      1. Which is why I support the Obama Doctrine – Don’t Do Stupid Shit and if you must do something lob a missile in and declare victory.

        1. Ah, a clever tweaking of the Clinton Doctrine sans blowjob.

          Because those bombs lobbed in 1998 did so much good in Sudan and Afghanistan, right? Nothing bad came out of Afghanistan ever since!

          1. Correct. Everyone remembers the blowjob today.

            1. You can thank the progressive propaganda complex for that, not Clinton himself.

          2. I stepped of an airplane at the Sarajevo Aerodrom just about 18 months to the day that Blow Job Bill said “the boys will be home for Christmas”.

            Make of that what you will.

            1. “the boys will be home for (a)Christmas”.

              Is how we always corrected that.

        2. Yea, I’m sure lobbing bobs willy nilly and taking out innocence in the process doesn’t hurt our relations with the people/governments of the mideast or anything…jackass.

          “Sir, we found a couple of confirmed targets, but they’re at a wedding party.”..”I don’t care, put a Tomahawk right on their door step. That’s probably ok, right?”

            1. Nobody’s gonna lob me around all willy-nilly.

        3. Palin’s Buttplug|8.28.14 @ 12:35PM|#
          “Which is why I support the Obama Doctrine”

          No, turd. You defend that lying bastard because you’re an ignorant, lying partisan.

        4. THERE IS NO OBAMA DOCTRINE.

          Just reactions to events.

        5. Don’t Do Stupid Shit and if you must do something lob a missile in and declare victory.

          Irony is dead.

          1. Irony is dead.

            On so many levels.

        6. You mean the missiles that led directly to 9/11?

          That happened after Clinton neglected to say yes to a deal to have Osama extradited as I recall.

        7. I wish you would follow the Obama Doctrine on this website and not type stupid shit.

          Probably as likely as the before mentioned policy being a legitimate way to deal with foreign nations/groups.

          Relative terms being. … well relative.

    2. This week he’s blaming the Obama Administration for another nation’s civil war.

      Show me on the doll where…

      uh, I mean show me where Rand Paul places blame at anybodies feet for the civil war. His basic argument is that ‘it ain’t our problem’.

      1. He has an editorial today saying that we helped and supported the rise of ISIS. This is incontrovertible. Unable to dispute the assertion, they have chosen to spin it.

  4. The Greens? No? Ok, the Bull-Moose? gah. Illinois Nazis?

    ” this is the exact criticism that Republicans have hurled at both Democrats and members of the Paul family for years.”

    You were expecting original material? The DNC is a cover band.

    1. nice

      “Hey – you guys know any Be Bop Deluxe? No? OK…”

      1. They only do covers of Fleetwood Mac and the Eagles.

        1. Except they want everybody to go their way.

          1. Nobody has any strong feelings for the Eagles?

            1. The Philadelphia Eagles? Not really.

      2. They probably do share Bill Nelson’s ideas about cosmic beams of inspiration.

        1. Ah – another human being who knows who Bill Nelson is!

          I always wanted to chat with him. His brain is about 50 years ahead of normal people, musically.

          His taste in haircuts and clothes…meh…

          1. For over thirty years now, and here’s how.

    2. Dilation ‘N’ Curettage (great name for a blog site)

      1. Not so much a morning radio show.

  5. OT: Just got out of property law. We finished today discussing Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1904), where SCOTUS decided Congress had the power to break its treaty obligations with Indian tribes.

    It seems “FYTW” has been around for a long, long time.

    1. That case would have been so much more awesome were it Lonewacko vs Hitchcock.

      I know this not even having been around when Lonewacko roamed the HyR.

      1. Lonewacko v. Alfred Hitchcock?

        1. Starring Danny Trejo

        2. He claimed Psycho was biographical?

    2. FYTW is the price of civilization.

        1. only when it is ‘mother civilization’

    3. Essentially, treaties signed by a president and ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate can be undone by 50%+1 legislation signed into law…

      While that never really made sense to me, the Constitution doesn’t provide for how a treaty can be repealed…

      1. Makes perfect sense to me. Binding agreements with external agencies should be hard to get into and easy to get out of.

        Kind of like contracts involving minors.

        1. Not to mention that it’s the one place where the gov’t should be free to invoke FYTW on our behalf, IMO.

  6. Oh, for a muse of fire that would ascend
    The brightest heaven of invention!
    A kingdom for a stage, princes to act,
    And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!
    Then should the warlike Harry, like himself,
    Assume the port of Mars, and at his heels,
    Leashed in like hounds, should famine, sword, and fire
    Crouch for employment.

    1. Should that not read “warlike Barry“?

      Nice cite, by the way!

  7. Neoconservative GOPpers may have been flinging their war turds at sane people for the past generation or two, but Democrats have been the American party of war for more than a century. No Kristol-lite character is ever going to come close to Wilson and FDR in the amount of damage they do to this country.

    Historically speaking, the emergence of an non-interventionist right and Democrats who adore the idea of Pax Americana is a return to political equilibrium. Not a moment too soon, either. Entrusting the torch of peace to a bunch of welfare-loving, state-worshiping OWSers rather than the ideological descendants of Leonard Read is a shitty idea.

    1. Hey! what about JFK, LBJ, and HST?

      What are they, chopped liver?

      1. In my defense, I didn’t intend to compile an exhaustive lists of asshole Democrats who got American kids killed in foreign hellholes over the past century.

  8. Hillary is going to turn Rand Paul into a twitching pile of goo on the floor, you people do realize?

    1. I find “Hillary” and “pile of goo” in the same sentence to be rather repulsive.

      1. but twitching works, especially when followed by ‘eeeeww’

      2. It has been about 35 years since Hillary was anywhere near a pile of goo.

    2. granted rand paul isn’t the best speaker you really believe debates are Hillary’s strong suit. Policy prescription and my hatred for her aside I just don’t think she is a good debater.

      1. Bill was good.

        1. He mastered the anecdote and the feels

        2. No he wasnt. He finished dead last* during the 7 dwarves debate leading up to 1992 primaries.

          *official robc scorecard

      2. Rand is actually a very effective speaker. I concur with your assessment of Hilary’s speaking abilities, but I’ll defend Rand’s. Not so much from a perspective of agreement either (for his father whom I agree with on as much is a terrible speaker, from a political effectiveness angle).

        When Rand speaks, he sounds incredibly sincere in his beliefs. And he has a professorial quality about him. Hilary sounds like a packaged commodity in the same vein as a Mitt.

        1. Debates don’t matter. Rand will tell everyone the truth about Hilary being a warmonger and MSM will make him look like a ranting lunatic and ignore Hilary’s warmongering rhetoric.

        2. I don’t think Rand or his father are very effective speakers. While Rand does sound sincere as did his father he’s not the type of speaker that does well in debates IMHO

            1. I should clarify: effective debater.

              1. He will calmly and rationally tear her to pieces with the truth.

                1. That’s not how debates are won. Truth in debates is very subjective.

                2. Unless the moderator steps in and calls him a liar when scores points.

                  1. I suspect that l’affaire crowley–and even the spectacle of an intoxicated Diane Sawyer yukking it up on election night–is going to result in some debate blowback from here on out.

                    If there were any illusions about moderators or mainline media being impartial, they’re now completely gone. And candidates on both sides have to prepped to put moderators in their place if they inject themselves into the debate, which you know they will.

              2. Master debater?

        3. I disagree, Mittens comes across as relaxed and sincere in comparison to Hillary. But only in comparison.

          1. I disagree, Mittens comes across as relaxed and sincere in comparison to Hillary. But only in comparison.

            I concur that both creatures are really robots, but also that Twitt’s a better model.

            When Twitt blinked and stuttered getting trapped in his contradictions, one could almost hear the memory addresses re-written with fresh foo, a tic in Twitt’s otherwise seamless operation akin to any other household appliance, before even newer and shinier lies came out.

            Hillary just locks up, all ‘illegal operation style,’ in the same situations. Nobody goes off-the-rails going off-script so fast as Hillary; outside of controlled speeches and settings she’s always seconds from a BSOD/re-poll/re-boot sequence.

      3. She strikes me as a fierce debater (just a fierce character in general), but that’s not a good quality for a politician running for an executive position.

        She kicked Obama’s ass in the 2008 debates for the same reasons Romney did, namely Obama being a terrible politician when he’s forced out of Empty-Suited Messiah mode, but her red-ass act gets old quickly.

        1. If I recall correctly, she got her ass handed to her in the NY senate primary.

        2. Reality is not your strong suit.

          1. Palin’s Buttplug|8.28.14 @ 1:17PM|#
            “Reality is not your strong suit”

            As if the turd would be an authority on the matter.

          2. The grown-ups are talking. Back in the closet.

          3. Reality isn’t even your weak suit.

          4. Pot, have you met kettle?

          5. Your attempt to discuss reality is going cause a tear in the space time continuum. So shut the fuck up.

        3. Fierce is not the word I’d use; ‘Strident’ is much more apt.

          Which works in small doses and quickly wears thin.

          1. She’s likable enough.

              1. I was quoting Candidate Obama during the 2008 Democratic debates, Bob. It’s my second favorite public damnation-via-faint-praise, after the time Bill Murray called Chevy Chase a “medium-talent hack.”

                1. I forgot about that.

          2. She’s an attack dog, and her role is to say nasty things to position other candidates as being pleasant populists who will bring us all together.

            Which is also why I don’t think Rand can win the GOP nomination, much less the presidency. He’s way too political, way too willing to go out on a political limb and alienate mainstream GOP types, to capture the presidency. What we should’ve learned from Obama is that people follow platitudes and empty suits on whom we can impress our own values–basically a social media president. Hillary can’t win because she’s an asshole, but Rand can’t win because he’s a much-improved version of Goldwater.

            For all his attempts to avoid the Austrian/libertarian tag, Rand is still out there invoking Bastiat left and right and even criticized CRA 64 once upon a time before he got his political legs under him. That’s not the way you win the presidency, so we’ll likely have to settle for him being the best Senator the nation has seen since Taft (though I suspect that when he retires, Rand will be viewed as even better than Taft in our circles).

            1. I don’t think the GOP can win the social media president game. It’s too hip to hate them, and the MSM is to eager to latch on the “radical right-winger” accusation, no matter what is said.

              Even if Ronald Reagan himself was reincarnated and charmed the pants off the country, Chris Matthews and the like would jump on him for dog whistle racism for mentioning “states’ rights” in a speech or something.

              They’re simply not going to let a conservative win a popularity contest, not without either A) Real substance to back it up, or B) progressive policies hitting the fan hard enough for their unpopularity to finally win out.

    3. Drown me! Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please, Brer Tony, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.

    4. Hillary is about as mentally-flexible as a 2×4. Flexibility is an absolute requirement when debating someone who isn’t directly across the political aisle from you.

      She’s used to establishment story lines and old school party schemes that have been hashed and rehashed for decades. Things be a changin’ and she does NOT have the intelligence to engage anyone or anything outside the box without her army of writers and handlers crafting every fabric and angle of response.

      1. I’ve found Hillary to be quite flip-floppy, though it’s true that she’s not especially agile at it. The same can be sand about Sen. Paul, though, and you can add a nice dollop of whiny petulance too. It’s not brave to be against foreign adventurism when the whole country is sick of it. It’s brave to say you’re against the public accommodation piece in the CRA and not pretend you never said you were.

        1. You and Hillary are war mongers because you both know it’s not going to be your children getting blown to pieces. Sickening.

        2. Re: Tony,

          It’s not brave to be against foreign adventurism when the whole country is sick of it.

          No, what’s brave is being for it and then lie about it shamelessly later.

          1. Hypocrisy! It’s what the left is about!

        3. If you want to hook more people into buying your schtick, you need to be less blatant in your concern trolling.

    5. The election is over two years away and you’re already face deep in that wrinkly old snatch.

    6. I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Hilly has left a few stink-bombs for Randy to kick up.

      Whoever the GOP nominee is will yell BENGHAZI! loudly and often and the America public has been brain-washed into thinking it might be a real scandal.

      1. If White Squaw doesn’t get the nomination, you know you will support Hillary. I’ve already said it will happen and everyone here will see it happen. So let it be written, so let it be done.

        1. Actually, I am for pro-gun, pro-energy, un-PC Brian Schweitzer but his chances died when he compared Dianne Feinstein to a hooker.

          So I will be disappointed too.

          1. There’s no comparison since nobody would pay DiFi for sex.

            1. rule 54.

          2. Feinstein would be a terrible hooker unless you were into pegging.

          3. Therefore, you’ll support Hillary when the time comes. Warmongering baby murderer.

            1. Hil-Dog vs Huckabee?

              Yeah, probably her. What a suck-ass choice.

              1. Well, you’ve already started to admit that I’m right. NO, asshole, you WILL support whoever your TEAM nominates.

                1. I am hedging because I don’t know what kind of nutcase the GOP will nominate.

                  Flava Cain may crawl out of his hole and win it.

                  1. Palin’s Buttplug|8.28.14 @ 1:23PM|#
                    “I am hedging because”…

                    You’re a hypocritical turd, that’s why.

      2. murdered ambassador=fake issue

    7. Hillary supports non-ending war and killing little brown children overseas with bombs. Therefore, Tony supports killing little brown children overseas with bombs.

      Some things are just facts, and there you have one.

      1. And Paul supports starving huge numbers of old people.

        1. Too much fat makes the Soylent Green taste kind of funny.

          1. Because the fat turns rancid quickly. If they’re thin enough it’s kind of like Soylent jerky.

        2. Are you playing shreek today? We aren’t talking about Paul here, we’re talking about Hillary the war monger, and Tony the war monger.

          1. She’s a warmonger relative to the one (1) potential Republican nominee who happens to be an isolationist.

            1. Isolationist is an economics term, and no Rand is not one. But since you don’t know shit about economics, it’s no surprise you get this wrong. And since you are incapable of learning, you will continue to get it wrong.

            2. No, she’s a war monger, period. Just like Tony.

              1. Does it surprise you that Tony, the vile immoral pig that he is, is also a warmonger?

            3. She’s a warmonger as with all of the other potential republican nominees except one (1) who happens to be an isolationist. FTFY

              1. She’s a warmonger as with all of the other potential republican nominees except one (1) who happens to be an isolationist. FTFY

                She is a warmonger compared to Obama and he is jumping into a 3rd (4th?) war in Iraq.

                Remember when TEAM BLUE thought getting into a land war across the ocean in Asia was a bad thing? I think it only happened for a week in Oct 2004 and Oct 2008. Maybe for a few days in Oct of 2006.

                1. I’m sensing the stench of false equivalence. When TEAM BLUE starts a decade-long war based on lies, get back to me.

                  1. So why is he trying so hard to restart it?

                  2. Re: Tony,

                    When TEAM BLUE starts a decade-long war based on lies, get back to me.

                    You mean the Vietnam war?

                  3. A Presidency can only last 8 years bucko.

                  4. When TEAM BLUE starts a decade-long war based on lies, get back to me.

                    *cough cough* GulfOfTonkin *cough* *cough*

                  5. Tony:

                    I’m sensing the stench of false equivalence.

                    Now, you say?? I had assumed that you had become so accustomed to your own scent that you couldn’t smell it anymore.

            4. Re: Tony,

              She’s a warmonger relative to the one (1) potential Republican nominee who happens to be an isolationist. [sic]

              Ah, Team Red’s favorite epithet. It is never about principles with the little Marxians, I’d wager.

            5. She’s a warmonger, period.

            6. Ah, so Rand’s idea to keep the defense spending stable at..the largest in the history of the world and our country….is “isolationist”?

              Fantastic!

              A president doesn’t get to decide that stuff anyway. It s BIG MACHINE. If Rand actually obtained a conscience, like Nader (who wanted to cut defense in 1/2 or 2/3), then it’s very likely he would be assassinated or otherwise railroaded by the real powers – you know, those corporations y’all love so much. No one is going to let the gravy train combo of defense money, propaganda delivery and unbridled resource extraction worldwide slow down! Especially not the Kochs…..who made their money building refineries for Communists.

              “The secretive oil billionaires of the Koch family would not have the means to bankroll their favorite causes had it not been for the pile of money the family made working for the Bolsheviks in the late 1920s and early 1930s, building refineries, training Communist engineers and laying down the foundation of Soviet oil infrastructure.”

        3. Re: Tony,

          And Paul supports starving huge numbers of old people.

          And stab kittens. Don’t forget that one.

          Oh, and drain the oceans. Yep, I’ve heard that one, too. Mostly from some guy ranting crazily on the street… hey, wait a minute! That was you?

          1. And makes puppy smoothies. Can’t forget that one OM….

            1. whats wrong with puppy smoothies? You getting judgmental?

      2. That right there, is a mathmatical certainty.

      3. The left only supports war when they are in charge.

        The day a Republican gets into the White House, the war protestors will be back in business.

        Principals, not principles.

        1. What war are we talking about?

          1. Whatever one the warmonger Republican starts illegally prosecuting when he enters the White House.

            The same one they will stop protesting once a Democrat enters the White House.

          2. Re: Tony,

            What war are we talking about?

            The one that Cindy Sheehan was protesting against for years until nuestro amado y valiente se?or presidente arrived to set things straight.

            1. You mean the one that’s over?

              1. The one that Obama deescalated according to his predecessor’s timetable.

                1. So what are you bitching about?

                2. “Cut and Run” Bush surrendered? I remember clearly his speech in about 2005 saying “they are standing up so we can stand down”. Wow! A “timetable” over a period longer than both world wars put together.

                  And what, pray tell, did your Hero Bush accomplish with his couple trillion spent, tens of thousands of Americans wounded and killed, etc?

              2. Re: Tony,

                You mean the one that’s over?

                You’re thinking of the Vietnam War. No, Tony, sweetheart. I’m talking about the current one, the one that it is still ongoing: Iraq. The U.S. is bombing the place again – didn’t you hear?

                1. I wish Bush hadn’t destabilized the Middle East too.

                  1. Re: Tony,

                    I wish Bush hadn’t destabilized the Middle East too.

                    I wish the U.S. hadn’t destabilized the Middle East at all. But that is what happens when people let the State grow so big – it starts to break things around the house.

                    1. And when you blame every bad act on an abstract concept like big government instead of the people who perpetrated them, it starts to break your brain.

                    2. And when you blame every bad act on the individuals who perpetrated them, not on the big government that enabled them, it starts to break your brain.

                      You start to think everything will be OK if the right people are in charge.

                    3. Re: Tony,

                      And when you blame every bad act on an abstract concept like big government instead of the people who perpetrated them

                      The bad people that perpetrated those things were enabled by big government, Tony. It is not like these people are working in an underground lair sending their armies of atomic supermen. They had hundreds of thousands of willing unionized minions at their disposal – the bad people still do.

                    4. You realize there would be no such thing as “big government” without the people running it.

                    5. But that is what happens when people let the State grow so big

                      Looking at history, I can’t think of any state that didn’t grow too big. History seems to be a pattern of free societies creating wealth, only to be looted by parasitic governments. Over and over and over. It’s almost like there’s no way to stop the State from growing. How do you stop it? It’s got organized violence on its side. Do you stop it with organized violence? Then you’ve just replaced it.

                    6. If statism is what we must endure, then decentralization is the least plundery and murdery of any form. the smaller the political unit, the better. All the way down to the individual.

                    7. How do you achieve this decentralized government? It is the nature of power to grow and centralize. There is no incentive to get rid of laws and regulations. Only to modify existing ones or create new ones. People don’t seek power so they can destroy it. They seek power to wield it. Government doesn’t come with a reset button. It just grows like a cancer until it kills its host. Then the cycle repeats.

                    8. Secession.

                      Jefferson was right that the nature of the state is to expand and for liberty to retreat. But if you remove yourself from the easy reach of a particular state–say, by crossing an ocean or by building a platform in international waters or going to Antarctica or the moon or wherever else–then you’ve got a chance to reset the hourglass or, if you’re an ancap, maybe even overcome the statist intuition.

                    9. How do you achieve this decentralized government? It is the nature of power to grow and centralize.

                      It’s a good question and as objection it doesn’t exactly favor statism. All I’m saying that as far as statism goes, smaller units are better for promoting wealth and liberty.

                      As for the inevitability of centralization it’s pretty much an iron law that states do this. Some are more resistant to it than others and on occasion there are forces that compel states to decentralize, namely the economic catastrophe that is created from the previous move towards centralization.

                      San Marino is a good example, as is Lichtenstein. Each entity, in it’s overt avoidance of conflict with other states have preserved their independence and to an extent have staved off their consolidation into larger political units.

                      Government doesn’t come with a reset button. It just grows like a cancer until it kills its host. Then the cycle repeats.

                      And you say that we can’t do any better.

                    10. If this is true, there is little we can do about except live like the Kings that even average Americans are today……

                      Really? Do you really really care about what happens in 200 years? Maybe the US will break into 6 countries….or maybe we will become one with Mexico and Canada. Doesn’t really matter to me. I have more pressing problems…

                  2. When was the Middle East stable?

                    1. Re: sarcasmic,

                      When was the Middle East stable?

                      Before 1948, more or less. Before 1914 even more stable, but 1948 is the break away point.

                2. So when did this start? When Reagan bombed Libya? Or when we backed Israel? Or then IKE allowed the CIA to do the Shah thing?

                  When? Is history broken into these little chunks?

                  There is absolutely no way to keep those folks over there from murdering each other. That’s a given. What may have been somewhat avoidable is us losing so many Americans to it and also making it much worse. It had a screwy balance with Saddam there and Iran his enemy, etc. – but, then again, that all was set in motion by our Brit friends and the Turks before them.

                  Israel is also a bit of a problem.

                  There are simply too many of them (crazies) – let them kill off their own people and tell them when they are ready to become slightly civilized we will help them develop their countries for the benefit of all the people there. Period.

              3. Tony|8.28.14 @ 1:22PM|#
                “You mean the one that’s over?”

                We mean the one Obo kept going for years.

    8. Maybe Hilary can regale us with tales of dodging sniper fire while dumpster diving.

    9. Hilary is going to burn the world with war, you do realize that Tony?

      1. And if RP gets the nomination, he shall be her first crispy casualty.

        1. Well its official.

          The Tonies of the world have flipped to full warmonger all in the service of TEAM BLUE.

          Anyway it will not be Hilary who burns RP it will be MSNBC and FOX news and the NYT and the Washington Post etc who burns him.

          It will be fun watching Fox news endorse Hilary though…and watching you praise Fox.

          1. I’m tempted by the thought that Hillary could be a “uniter,” but it’s just not going to happen. Republicans treated her like Satan in a pantsuit before and they’ll do it again. If RP gets the nomination, I agree that it will make FOX’s little head explode, and that will be fun. But he’s not going to get the nomination. Mitt Romney is! And believe me, I’d much prefer RP for any reason you can name (but mostly the head exploding).

            1. I do agree, the head exploding will be funny!

              “The only place a logical inconsistency can exist is inside a human’s head.”

          2. I can just see Hillary and Tony in some back room with a bottle of barbecue sauce that they are slathering on the severed limbs of little children blown apart in one of their beloved wars.

            1. Children blown to paste and pieces by Democrat go straight to heaven, Hyperion, on the gentle wings of good intentions.

          3. Its because they are not good people, Tony and his ilk.

            They. Are. Not. Good. People.

            They are consequentialists. I got into a big FB argument with a friend on income inequality and theft. I pointed out that we could solve a whole lot of inequality problems by rounding up Buffett, the Koch brothers, and Bill Gates and shooting them and taking their money and distributing it to the poor. His riposte: “I wouldn’t do that, mostly because I don’t think it would have a tangible lasting effect on inequality. But if you have other reasoning, it may be that we have different moralities in play.”

            They care about some odd balance sheet of outcomes in their heads, and use that to explain away any of their personal actions or their consequences. They literally will commit murder if they think it is justified by their calculus. That’s why they always end up politically int the same place – marching people into camps or ovens “for the greater good”. They might even be crying as they do it – they like self-loathing as long as there are no “tangible lasting effects”.

            They are not good people.

            1. They are utilitarians, the lowest of a vile breed. The individual is just grease for the wheels of society.

              1. The utilitarians (Mill, etc.) explicitly associated their beliefs with individualism. None advocated for punishing innocent people for the greater good–that is the classic straw man criticism of utilitarianism.

                But we shouldn’t let those details obscure the fact that it is not morally superior to disregard consequences altogether. Deontologists like you are in competition with people with much stronger adherence to their particular set of rules. Like Rick Santorum.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  None advocated for punishing innocent people for the greater good – that is the classic straw man criticism of utilitarianism.

                  You’re confusing the criticism against the little red Marxians with the criticisms on utilitarian ethics.

                  Like Rick Santorum.

                  Rick Santorum is not a Deontologist or a believer in natural rights. He’s a conservative socialist. And as a socialist, he lies, prevaricates, throws Ad Hominem attacks and cheats.

                2. None advocated for punishing innocent people for the greater good

                  So…no taxes or regulations?

            2. I pointed out that we could solve a whole lot of inequality problems by rounding up Buffett, the Koch brothers, and Bill Gates and shooting them and taking their money and distributing it to the poor.

              What money? They have wealth, not money.

            3. I wouldn’t do that, mostly because I don’t think it would have a tangible lasting effect on inequality.

              And that’s why utilitarianism blows. We may go in for Mises and Hayek and all those old fart continental utilitarians, but anyone who thinks counting utils will provide a good outcome in the post-Rand era is certifiable. The people doing the counting always have their thumbs on the scale.

              When I hear “greater good,” I reach for my gun.

          4. Corning|8.28.14 @ 1:07PM|#
            “Well its official.
            The Tonies of the world have flipped to full warmonger all in the service of TEAM BLUE.”

            Absolutely!
            That lying POS in the WH has pointed that direction and the moral cripples of the world are now marching that way!
            You don’t expect them to think for themselves, do you?

    10. Maybe your obvious brain damage has made you forget how truly terrible Hillary is on the spot.

      Those were people were booing her by the way, not saying Boo-urns.

      1. My point was more about Rand Paul’s deficiencies than Hillary’s strengths.

        1. Tony|8.28.14 @ 1:23PM|#
          “My point was more about Rand Paul’s deficiencies than Hillary’s strengths.”

          You mean you and assorted other moral cripples don’t like him.

        2. Hillary has strengths? Maybe in her cankles, but that’s about it.

      2. How about this little gem

    11. I heard the GOP was demanding a ban on hexes, curses, and the like for the 2016 debates. No idea if the networks will give in.

    12. Go Team !!!!

    13. Is she going to flash what’s left of her tits at him?

  9. This might actually be just the right kind of attention Rand Paul needs. Independents and war-weary people might like it?

  10. If Democrats are such firm believers in ‘Merican planetary squabble-fixing capabilities WHERE is proof they’ve achieved success with this super-duper power?

    Where is the proof, Czin? Name one country you and your smarmy backpack of moldy sandwiches called the Democratic party have delivered from evil using the American imperialism you are now rejoicing.

  11. What’s our goal? I mean, can anyone in this administration articulate a strategy? If we could wave a wand and have exactly what we want in the Middle East, what would that result be? I mean in concrete terms, not “Brotherly love and socialism.”

    1. If we could wave a wand and have exactly what we want in the Middle East, what would that result be?

      *** crickets ***

      1. What’s the sound of oil wells and landscapes made out of mildly radioactive glass?

    2. Their strategy is they want to stop looking like idiots & hypocrites. Full stop.

      I suspect their decisionmaking is largely attempting to minimize bad press in *tomorrow’s* paper with little thought to the one coming out the day after.

      1. A “strategy” based on today’s public opinion isn’t a strategy at all. Besides, if you want to look strong, resolute, and like you know what you’re doing, the best way to do that is to be those things, not to worry about whether people think you are.

    3. I mean in concrete terms, not “Brotherly love and socialism.”

      Those are concrete terms. The amount of concrete that would be needed to pour over the mass graves of kulaks, wreckers, and counter-revolutionaries is proof.

      1. Or the amount of concrete that would be needed pour over the middle east.

        Which ever one takes more, because ‘shovel ready economic improvers’!

    4. “The spice must flow.”

      More seriously, no. They have no strategy on anything. They are the political equivalent of the simplest organisms, wholly reactive. What they want is a quiet day.

    5. What’s our goal

      ?

      Their goal, is to do whatever will keep the Democrats in power. Everything else is unimportant.

      1. I know that’s their real strategy, but it’s a piss-poor way of running things.

    6. Can our goal require time travel?

      It would be nice to rewind to September 12, 2001, and tighten the circle drawn around “the enemy” to exclusively contain stateless terrorist organizations who export terrorism outside of their region. Use the opportunity to bring Iraq and Syria into the fold of civilized nations against the really unsettling threat of stateless terrorism.

      But no… Dreams of democracy rising from the ashes of occupation in the Middle East had their way.

      1. Maybe in the long run it’s good? States are more dangerous and inhumane than stateless terrorists anyway.

        1. States are certainly more dangerous and more inhumane — at least in volume — than stateless terrorists.

          But states have clear lines to cross before they cause other states to behave like bulls in china shops, while the lines that stateless terrorists may or may not cross are much more nebulous. It isn’t the terrorists that are the problem: it is the reaction to the terrorists that is the problem.

        2. They’re more dangerous to their own citizenry.

          They’re not more dangerous to a bigger, more powerful state (the US), because they’re fixed targets, and they know it.

    7. I mean, can anyone in this administration articulate a strategy?

      To be fair, neither can much of the opposition.

  12. OT for you football/soccer fans, UEFA group draw complete:

    http://www.uefa.com/uefachampi…..index.html

    1. Serie A is at the lowest point I’ve ever seen it in tournament play. As well as Roma is playing I don’t fancy them in this group and Juve is as good as goosed.

      1. I don’t really follow Serie A so I’m not in a position to disagree with you here. Roma with ManCity & Bayern is in a tough spot. I assume you would have Atletico coming out of Group A. Who goes with them, Olympiakos or Malmo?

        Group F looks to be the toughest with Barcelona, Paris S-G, and Ajax although I think the first two would be favored. Chelsea & Arsenal look to be in good shape as is Liverpool if they don’t take Basel for granted.

        C & H look to be the most open.

        1. I think Olympiakos can sneak through if they keep the form they’ve had in the last year.

          Ajax is not a threat.

          We may see EPL teams bounce back. German and Spanish sides remain strongest.

          And just like everyone should speak and eat Italian, they should watch Serie A even in its current form. :

          1. Why don’t my smiley emoticons show up?

            So you know, I put one at the end of the last sentence.

    2. Odds of a UKR v RUS matchup coming out of the Europa draw tomorrow?

      Unless they intentional avoid it, its gonna happen.

  13. It’s disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community won’t toe the team purple war mongering line and support perpetual war.

    FIFY, warmongering dumbfucks. Oh, and warmongering dumbfucks includes both of you, Shreek and Tony.

    1. You know, he’s asserting some political cojones here in not just saying, “Presidents don’t initiate wars; Congress does.” He could do that and avoid some of this nonsense.

  14. *shrugs* Hey, we’ve always been at war with Eurasia.

  15. Lonewacko v. Alfred Hitchcock?

    Terror, as a concept, is not copyrightable.

    1. Heh. How many of us did he threaten to sue back in the day? And then, when Epi (iirc) actually accused him of pedophilia, he simply vanished.

  16. Democrats are scared of Rand and that’s a fact.
    Probably not because they think he’d be anymore difficult to defeat in 2014 than Romney or Jeb Bush, but because he could potentially, long term, blow their fucking party apart. (As he could the GOP)
    If the GOP nominates Rand the status quo is over. And NOBODY wants that. Also why, sadly, it’ll likely never happen.

    1. If the GOP nominates Rand the status quo is over. And NOBODY wants that.

      Your brethren in the media would have to earn their pay by actually thinking before banging out the same tired old story. why, it could be several years before they settle on the proper line to toady to all of the various new power groups effectively.

      1. Your brethren in the media

        As I said, NOBODY wants that.

    2. I fully agree.

      Although you may not like it.

      1. I’ll take my “agrees” where I can get ’em.

        1. From a turd?

  17. I do love it, though, that Tony and his ilk are so obviously frightened.

    1. Oh please don’t nominate Rand oh no I’m so scared.

      1. I know you are…and you should be. Rand is an actual threat to your beloved, vile ideology (if you could call it that). If I were an immoral pig, like yourself, I’d be terrified too.

        1. Okay, terrify me. Explain just how in a million years Republican primary voters will gamble the presidency on Rand Paul.

          Then explain how he wins a general election in a country full of people who disagree with him on one major issue or another.

          1. Re: Tony,

            Explain just how in a million years Republican primary voters will gamble the presidency on Rand Paul.

            If that is what you believe, then why are you so keen on calling the guy an “isolationist” – Team Red’s favorite epithet? Again, this belies your confidence.

      2. Your use of Team Red’s favorite epithet (isolationist) belies your confidence, Tony.

  18. Unfortunately, I see the likelihood of Rand winning the nomination as being effectively zilch.

    For reasons which should be obvious to anyone who pays any attention to the establishmentarian cabal running the country. The Republicans would rather hand the country over to Elizabeth Warren than see Rand in the White House.

    1. Well, the establishment isn’t exactly popular right now…with anyone. At some point they will either change or die. The only question is, are we at that point yet. We’ll see.

      1. They were popular enough to trounce the Tea Party candidates nationwide even within the GOP itself…that’s saying something!

    2. There’s also the problem that Republican voters aren’t remotely libertarian.

    3. I’m tempted to register as a Republican so I can vote for him in the primary.

      1. I did to vote for his Dad in 2008.

        Bonus was I got to vote for him against the McConnell lackey in his 2010 primary.

    4. Lizzie supports good ole-fashioned American business efforts like the Exim Bank. Whereas commie Rand Paul opposes pro-business initiatives!

  19. If Rand Paul were President, nine year old girls would be REQUIRED to carry an Uzi at all times; even to school!

  20. It look like Shreek and Tony are now cunning linguists for Hillary. Who knew that after six years they actually do want bush.

    1. What you did there, I did not want see that…

      But I did.

      Antidote

    2. The bitch could shave down there. You never know.

      1. The see that images conjured up by the commentariate are going to become really barf inducing the closer and closer we get to 2016. The Dem candidate will be white squaw or screaming thighs. Either way, it is going to be hideous.

        1. RJ The Terrible,

          What?! Don’t you want a woman to be elected President, just to have a woman in the West Wing, and no matter how inane she is?

          1. no shreek,
            the images of old inane snatch, both shaved and unshaved with faces buried in that hideousness is what is barf inducing.

            The only question is which stupid blond, bleached or not, is going to be held up by team blue losers as a paragon of _____ (pick it, you idiots) and anyone who is against the female moron is a misogynist.

            I fucking hate socialists.

      2. I think you’re correct, maybe?

        1. I will not click that. No fucking way.

        2. Oh, holy fuck!

        3. What is wrong with you people?

        4. MY

          EYYYYYYYYES!

          Quick…get…bleach!

      3. sarcasmic,

        Brilliant post. Let’s see more posts like this. You fucking moron.

  21. In a country where most politicians (however well “educated”, to include eye doctors who went into politics), it matters very little in the short and long runs, who blames who for what, and especially about our involvement (and proposed noninvolvement) in an area where volatile peoples will continue to hate and kill each other for decades to come. The area is called the “Middle East”, a term partly invented by those great international trouble makers of yesteryear, the British and their Empire.

    I would like to believe that at least a few of our politicians have read at least one book as to why the U.S. is so interested in this part of the world to begin with. I would like to think that they read “Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present” by Michael Oren (2008).

    Also, a lot of our involvement in the Middle East (besides oil) is driven (literally) by a few million Protestants with influence and apocalyptic visions. This is described very well in “Sword of the Spirit, Shield of Faith: Religion in American War and Diplomacy” (2012) by Andrew Preston. My guess is that a small percentage of Americans have read either book, and probably never will.

    1. Books are good

    2. Some people will believe anything. You’re a great example.

      1. sarcasmic,

        Let’s see know. You post shit like “the bitch could shave down there. You never know”, and then you blast me for comments about two books that might help people understand the situation in the Middle East better. However, that is what I expect from those of your ilk. Looking forward to reading more of your crap. You have a nice day you fucking scrotum brain moron.

    3. I’m doubting that these books are the seminal authorities of Middle Eastern politics and international relations.

      1. sssshhhh.
        dont do that.

      2. Free Society,

        Of course these books are NOT “the seminal authorities of Middle Eastern politics and international relations”! Where did I say that in my post? However, they might be good books for the average American to read to better understand U.S. involvement in that area. But the average American will probably not read them anyway. All the average American has time for anyway is to work, eat, sleep, poop and fornicate, and play video games. However, since you appear to be a person of intellect you might consider reading them.

        1. Or, they might reduce the average American’s understanding of U.S. involvement in that area. That’s the problem with nonseminal unauthoritative books.

          1. Have you read the books? If not, you might take a look at the authors, especially Michael Oren. I suggested these books as a path to a better understanding of why the U.S. is in the Middle East to begin with. That’s ALL I suggested. Why does this now become such a huge fucking problem? If you don’t like my suggestion, then don’t read the books.

          2. Tell you what, I’ll read the wiki.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..nd_Fantasy

            And having the read the wiki, he makes a couple interesting points, but his overall thesis is a bit thin on explanatory power. We’re still militarily active in South Korea, too, which doesn’t get a lot of Biblical facetime, and has very few Jews to protect.

            1. TallDave,

              Of course we are in Korea. My comment was with specific reference to the Middle East. Apparently you must have reading comprehension problems. Read my post again, and then if you still don’t understand what I said, who gives a fuck anyway. Right?

              1. The problem that seems to have WHOOOSHED! over your head is that lacking such explanatory power suggests the United States is much more likely to be in Korea for exactly the same reasons they’re in the Mideast, and not totally different reasons having to do with Jew-love and Puritans perking up at the mention of Jerusalem.

                Except pointing out that the United States was probably in the Mideast in modern times to forestall Communism, defend democracies, and politically stabilize an energy-producing region, (you know — actual, stated policy) would just be really, really obvious and therefore not the subject of innumerable awards.

                1. Tall Dave,

                  Looks like you will simply have to whoosh my comments up your bung hole.

                  Have a nice evening, you fucking moron.

                  1. We can always expect such nuanced and thoughtful arguments from you.

                    1. Free Society,

                      Thanks. And I can ALWAYS expect you to be the asshole that you have always been, are now, and will no doubt be in the foreseeable fucking future. Have a nice Labor Day, you fucking moron.

                    2. Hey, fuckhead! How are you, asshole?

                    3. And didn’t you promise to leave, like 50 times?
                      WTF, do you need someone to help you find the door? Are you too stupid to find your way out?

                    4. And I can ALWAYS expect you to be the asshole that you have always been, are now, and will no doubt be in the foreseeable fucking future. Have a nice Labor Day, you fucking moron.

                      Thanks you too.

        2. I might consider sure, along with hundreds or thousands of books that may or may not be worth the read. There’s just too many good books out there to consume them all.

      3. Free Society|8.28.14 @ 3:19PM|#
        “I’m doubting that these books are the seminal authorities of Middle Eastern politics and international relations.”

        Uh, given the reviewer, I’m guessing they are at least one step up from “See Dick run!”

    4. On The Road To Mandalay:

      My guess is that a small percentage of Americans have read either book, and probably never will.

      I put it on my reading list, but I’m still only half way through reading the Patient Affordable Healthcare Act. That one’s a tough slog, and there a lots of typos, apparently. I’m not exactly sure what it’s supposed to say, so it’s quite a study.

      It’s quite taxing, having to stay up-to-date on the best healthcare policies, foreign affairs with Israel and the Middle East, and that’s not even counting economic policy. But, I need to choose the right Top Men, so they’ll make all the right decisions. Or, at least enough of the important ones. That’s another study. But, hey: the world’s not gonna run itself, now, is it? I need to know which lever to pull such that the impact of my voting is maximized towards the best outcome. So, I’ve got quite a reading list.

      Anyway, I don’t think I’ll be with you on foreign policy by the next election, but I hope to have healthcare down. I sure hope economics doesn’t come up, though.

      1. As usual, anything I post is immediately followed up by some bullshit from you. At least you are consistent and predictable in doing this. All I said in my comment was to recommend two books that I thought might be of some interest in understanding why the U.S. has had such interest in the Middle East for so long. That’s all I said, so I’m not sure what the fuck you are attempting to say in your counter post. Do you even know what the fuck you are attempting to say, or is it just my comments that bother you so fucking much?

        1. On The Road To Mandalay|8.28.14 @ 8:12PM|#
          “As usual, anything I post is immediately followed up by some bullshit from you. At least you are consistent and predictable in doing this.”

          Yeah, road-guy, you’re the poor victim of everything! Maybe that’s because your a raving idiot.
          Go away, please, before you prove you’re dumber than you look already.

        2. Oh, I’m sorry. You must be under the impression that what I’m saying is incredibly, closely related to what you’re saying, in order to make some point about what you said.

          Rather, I see it as an opportunity to say whatever I want to say, even if only tangentially related to anything you said.

  22. More proof that the abandonment of any semblance of rational geostrategic thinking has become a bi-partisan enterprise.

  23. It doesn’t matter. Rand Paul follows they typical Libertarian head-in-the-sand foreign policy. He’s not a serious guy.

    1. Mesoman,

      What did you say? Rand Paul is very serious when it comes to eye examinations. His skill in that area is what has enabled him to SEE into the future of U.S. foreign policy, and become a genius in that area.

      1. Actually, he’s do serious that he formed his own approval org since he didn’t want to pass the test of the formal association. He plays with monopoly money too – fitting since the Libertarian view is the monopoly is the most fair game.

    2. And by serious, we mean that we’re going to kill a bunch of 19-year-old American kids to prove what tough guys we are.

    3. Except his foreign policy position isn’t that far removed from what was pretty much the standard Republican or conservative view on foreign policy until about the last ten or fifteen years. So, by that standard, the only “serious” Republican foreign policy president would have been George W. Bush. Really? So running around the world in search of dragons to slay is your ideas of serious?

  24. I’m surprised Paul has managed to stay this consistent, most of the party leadership is not on this page but the voters might be. It will be an interesting GOP primary.

    I’m still not sold on Rand’s brand of “let it all burn” isolationism, but interventionism certainly hasn’t worked out all that well either. Sigh, maybe the best the Mideast can do is a bunch of Islamic nuts, and maybe the best we can offer the world is deterrence from direct attack by said lunatics. The Islamonuts aren’t really an expansionist creed like the Communists, and they’re always too economically backwards for anything like that anyway.

    Maybe it’s time for the Big American Yawn.

  25. Yes indeed. It will definitely be an interesting GOP primary AND Democrat primary, with the two parties who have been dictating to the country for over one hundred years. The usual mediocre politicians will run, two will get the nominations, one will win, and the American people will get 4 to eight more years of the same basic bullshit in a different form.

  26. The above statement comes from DNC National Press Secretary Michael Czin. You would be forgiven for thinking otherwise;
    Forgiveness must come with a lot of slack for not understanding how politics works. The instant I saw the criteria I knew it had to be from the Democrats’ press sec’y, because Teams! The only time I can recall a Team disavowing a winner from their own ranks was when a LaRouchian got the Dem nomination for US sen. from Ill. But had he gone on to win the gen’l election, I’m sure they would’ve very appreciatively admitted him as one of their own, regardless of his ideas.

  27. I leave the post for a few hours and come back to find it all flecked with spittle. Ewwww.

  28. Terrorist calls for conquer of Rome:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/07…..quer-rome/

    Question. If a terrorists explicitly says he wants Muslims to settle in Rome to conquer it, is restricting immigration for said group a viable option?

    1. Shit. WRONG THREAD!

      SORRY!!!

      1. Damn it Rufus, get your shit together.

  29. The one thing I haven’t seen in this thread is very few people thought Al Qaeda could strike the US for the very same reasons people think ISIS (or ISIL) can strike the US. They have the resources and the desire. Will they? Nobody knows for sure. My opinion, if they see an opportunity they will. Can we stop them? Only if we are lucky.

    1. ISIL is capable of doing similar, although they do seem to be more overt in their dealings that Al Qaeda. I mean, Al Qaeda was around and people knew who they were, but it seemed like their strength was blending in, subterfuge, sabotage, and funding subgroups. ISIL is a giant hammer.

      However, maybe the presiding Senator from Illinois will send them some planes, jet fuel, bullets and trucks to appease them. You know. If ISIL gets what they want, they won’t attack anyone, right?

      1. Some terrorist organizations you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way ISIL wants it. Well, ISIL gets it. I don’t like it any more than you do.

          1. Younger people might not get the Guns n Roses reference.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A

        1. Do you mean to say “there’s a failure to communicate”? 🙂

          1. I wish you’d stop being so good to me, President Obama.

  30. Not that I agree with everything Rand Paul…but wasn’t he criticized by Republicans and Democrats both for his statements on foreign policy? The idea of “maybe we shouldn’t arm rebel groups that have various political agendas as it might hurt us – look at Egypt and Libya” is not exactly the most radical or irrational statement.

    Maybe Paul could use an analogy? The best way to fight ants is not to cover yourself with honey…Or, perhaps, don’t give flamethrowers to the weird guys with crazy eyes and journals filled with revenge plots, diagrams, and discussions of the beauty of fire.

    I wonder if Attila the Hun was ever given war horses and swords as gifts in order for him to not attack someone?

    Oh, wait. Isn’t that the Senator’s Doctrine? Give the bad guys weapons and see if they like us? Maybe they’ll understand we sympathize with their plight.

    Anyway, big surprise, Democrats being disingenuous and grasping at pathetic straws in order to stay in power.

  31. Yay Team !!!! Go Team !!! RAH RAH RAH !!!!

  32. I kinda wish Paul had an “L” next to his name. I’ve sworn off ever voting “R” or “D” again but he’s got me tempted.

  33. my classmate’s ex-wife makes $63 hourly on the computer . She has been out of a job for five months but last month her income was $15794 just working on the computer for a few hours. read this post here…….
    ???????? http://www.netjob70.com

  34. Too much to bear!
    Where can you start?

    “Rand is a sincere and effective speaker”
    May be so….like he sincerely thought he was educating the black folks at one black university when he told them he was from the Party of Lincoln. So, he could be a sincere dumpkoff…..then again, it’s hard to believe he doesn’t and didn’t know that his campaign manager and many of his disciples are virtual Klansmen!

    “Rand is consistent on his foreign policy”
    So what? Doesn’t mean a single thing. The assumption here is twofold:
    1. If elected President, he would do as he says
    and, more importantly:
    2. He would have the political muscle, the backing, the votes, etc. to democratically do #1??

    The chances of this are….at zero. Absolute Zero. Any logical study of current American warmongering will show that HIS PARTY – the party which would elect and support him – are the warmongers. Period.

    Being realistic, I’m not saying the Dems have no warmongers. What I am saying is that GOP puts them to shame all in all and is loud and proud about “strong national defense” and all it’s hidden meanings. One only needs to look to 2000-2008 to see the GOP dream in terms of projection of power.

    1. craiginmass|8.30.14 @ 2:36PM|#
      “Too much to bear!
      Where can you start?”

      Simple: craig is a lefty ignoramus. Start and finish.

  35. Olivia . you think Elaine `s st0rry is inconceivable, last week I bought a top of the range Ariel Atom since I been earnin $9671 thiss month and-over, ten-k this past-munth . it’s by-far the most comfortable work Ive had . I began this six months/ago and immediately began to bring in more than $71, per hour .
    Get More Info——- http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.