Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Senator Rand Paul's Response to Obama... Right On!

by; Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Birthplace of Independent Conservativism


Rand Paul gets no argument from this quarter. In fact he receives deservedly high marks for his reasoned response to President Obama's rationalizations for his decision to intervene in the Libyan civil war.



Senator Paul is looking awfully nuanced here. What say you?

Via: Memeorandum

18 comments:

  1. I totally agree with what Mr. Rand is saying, Les. The only problem is that he was apparently saying something completely different 7-8 days ago; criticizing Mr. Obama for his NOT acting (Lawrence O'Donnell showed the statement tonight). And Gingrich has done virtually the same thing. A little case of the "John Kerry I was for it before I was against it" syndrome?......Politicians, don't you just love the hell out of 'em? LOL

    ReplyDelete
  2. i'd say he sounded like a statesman rather than like a politician. a man who presented the facts as he saw them then allowing the people to make the decision of the validity of the President's actions. a very concise rendition too.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Politicians do have a knack for shooting themselves in the foot now and again. Even Presidents.

    Guess that's because their human. Either that or they just have short memories perhaps.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Griper - Statesman huh. I can see that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. without seeing what he said i don't see it as a flip flop. there is a difference between doing something and doing something in an unconstitutional way. so, Senator Paul would be completely consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rand Paul should be a big boy then and go after the War Powers Act. Let's see him do that, like his father did. That would certainly be "consistent," wouldn't it. I wish we'd get rid of that piece of horrifically unconstitutional legislation.

    I don't trust this Rand Paul guy yet. I disagree with him probably 75% of the time, and I don't begrudge him that, but he does seem to have a consistency problem, and this rather well-spoken response of his hasn't filled that gap yet.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  7. on what basis do you declare that just because he did not attack the war powers act makes him inconsistent, jersey?

    as far as i was taught you were to evaluate what a person actually says to determine consistancy and how a person chooses to rebut is up to him not up to you and what you consider "real" consistancy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Griper, if you want to have a gripe, have it with the inconsistency of his position on the war powers act. I'm only pointing it out.

    If RAND Paul has a problem with executive military action then he should lay it out.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  9. jersey,
    to address the war powers act would require that Rand present an argument in favor of his position and if you listen to what he says he was not presenting an argument along those lines. he was presenting a "rebuttal" argument. and that is a very different form of argument.

    ReplyDelete
  10. His rebuttal does not address the legal precedents Obama employed for this action. Obama's safe on this because of the War Powers Act (and/with treaty powers), and judging from your very intelligent rebuttal, you seem to acknowledge that. I think Ron Paul and Kucinich, and the rest, have a good argument against this action, though I find myself agreeing with Obama in the end, even though I think the War Powers Act unconstitutional. It's the reality-based lesser of a bunch of evils. Where's Rand Paul on all this? Nowhere.

    One thing I haven't seen in Rand Paul yet is a deep grasp of American Constitutional law. he could have made a much better argument. Even I could, and I don't (think I...) agree with him.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. JMJ - After two days all comments get held for me to release. I do this because quite often I get a comment going back to an earlier post and unless I have it held I miss it.

    All held posts get released when I see them.

    No one gets filtered. Unless they violate the comment criteria.

    BTW - I just now saw your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Out of all the potential new contenders, he looks the best to me.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rand Paul will not ever be president of the United States.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  15. JMJ - Likely not. But he does serve a very useful purpose as one of the counter balances in the senate to the likes of dimwit Reid et all.

    ReplyDelete
  16. jersey,
    "he could have made a much better argument."

    that may be true. but just because he could have presented a better argument does not make the argument he presented as "inconsistent"

    an inconsistent argument and a better argument are two different ideas.

    one deals with a person's line of thinking and the other deals with the ability to convince.

    and from your line of thinking here as i read your comments it was the latter that you were trying to convey not the former.

    Les, I hold all comments like you do but I do so after three days and for the same reason.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with Griper, Rand sounds like a true statesman here!

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.