Rand Paul: End Nation Building

[Don]

Where I differ with Paul:
i get the impression that, presented with evidence from our intelligence people and others of our allies, that our country is in imminent danger of terrorist attacks with WMD's he'd do nothing, just wait and see, respond militarily only if tens of thousands of us are killed. A lot of conservatives share my view of Paul and that's why he does so poorly on the national stage. That, plus, not necessarily him, but the libertarian platform has no room and is totally opposed and hostile to and intolerant of social conservativism, especially faith based.

I don't think so. First, Rand Paul isn't really a libertarian. He's a Republican in the true sense of the word, barely recognizable from the RINO's who aren't. Paul has been associated as being an isolationist by those RINO's and by the democrats when it suits them. He wants a strong military but like he says, it shouldn't be misused for nation building or other excuses the establishment uses. Most of the threats we might face today that put us in imminent danger are because of what the establishment has done to enrage people against us. Rand knows that and he would still respond with the necessary force, or even act first if the threat was imminent. Unless it was an immediate threat he would follow the constitution and have congress declare war or do something like the letters of marque and reprisal. If given the authority to act I believe he would go after any enemy threat like Popeye the sailor man with an overwhelming force, finish the job and immediately return home.

[Peter1469]

Two things.

1) The scenario you put forward is a direct national security threat to the US, so no, Sen. Paul's response would not be to do nothing.

2) Social conservatism shouldn't be tolerated. It's completely inconsistent with the conservative ideal of limited government.

2 - at the federal level, certainly

[NapRover]

Two things.

1) The scenario you put forward is a direct national security threat to the US, so no, Sen. Paul's response would not be to do nothing.

2) Social conservatism shouldn't be tolerated. It's completely inconsistent with the conservative ideal of limited government.

1) that is exactly what W was confronted with, and people voted against it, including Paul
2) how can freedom of religion be guaranteed if people are forced to renounce it in favor of abortion, birth control, same sex marriage, removal of crosses from cemeteries, banning nativity scenes, no public education about religions?

[Green Arrow]

1) that is exactly what W was confronted with, and people voted against it, including Paul

Incorrect. The WMD threat was vastly overblown and it wasn't even a clear guarantee that they would be used against us. Paul didn't vote against it because he wasn't in Congress at the time.

2) how can freedom of religion be guaranteed if people are forced to renounce it in favor of abortion, birth control, same sex marriage, removal of crosses from cemeteries, banning nativity scenes, no public education about religions?

Quite easily. None of those things impact your ability to practice your religion.

[NapRover]

Incorrect. The WMD threat was vastly overblown and it wasn't even a clear guarantee that they would be used against us. Paul didn't vote against it because he wasn't in Congress at the time.

Quite easily. None of those things impact your ability to practice your religion.

I stand corrected in the vote issue, but he was opposed then, and freely says so now. We practice our religion by opposing immoral issues, which we feel drive our country into deeper decline and divide.

[Green Arrow]

I stand corrected in the vote issue, but he was opposed then, and freely says so now. We practice our religion by opposing immoral issues, which we feel drive our country into deeper decline and divide.

That's all well and good, but you can't say government needs to manage our social lives and simultaneously talk up constitutional adherence and limited government. You need to pick one and stick to it.

[NapRover]

That's all well and good, but you can't say government needs to manage our social lives and simultaneously talk up constitutional adherence and limited government. You need to pick one and stick to it.

Point taken, but isn't government managing our social lives by forcing us to accept these things we abhor, like public funding of abortion, funding bradley manning's self mutilation?

[NapRover]

My apologies to the op for derailing this. I don't agree that we stay out of nation building as an absolute.

[Peter1469]

My apologies to the op for derailing this. I don't agree that we stay out of nation building as an absolute.

I would agree it is not absolute. A predicate would be the locals wanting what we offered.

[NapRover]

I would agree it is not absolute. A predicate would be the locals wanting what we offered.

Affirmative. Where would Germany and Japan be without serious nation building?