Rand Paul Attacks Clinton Over Libya

On Saturday, Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul addressed the Republican Leadership Summit in New Hampshire, attacking Hillary Clinton over her role in the U.S.’s response to the Benghazi attacks of 2012. “Libya was a mistake,” he said, referring to America’s support of rebels who overthrew Mummer Gaddafi from power. “One thing that is probably true in the Middle East: every time we have toppled a secular dictator, a secular strong man, we’ve gotten chaos and the rise of radical Islam…The president won’t name the enemy, but I will: it’s radical Islam. Until we name it we can’t defeat them, and I will tell you this: if I were commander in chief I would do everything it takes to…defend the country against radical Islam.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/04/18/rand-paul-attacks-clinton-over-libya.html?account=thedailybeast&medium=twitter&template=cheat&via=twitter_page

Rand Paul Rips Hillary, Surveillance, Other Republicans at GOP Summit

Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul took aim at multiple targets Saturday — and not merely at Democrats.

Of course Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was a favorite subject, as Paul noted that “she travels in two planes, one for her and her entourage and another for her baggage.”

Paul saw Clinton’s role as secretary of state during the Benghazi debacle, in which four Americans were killed, including ambassador Christopher Stevens, as reason enough to keep her out of the Oval Office.

“I think that her dereliction of duty, her not doing her job, her not providing security for our forces, for our diplomatic missions, should forever preclude her from holding higher office,” Paul said.

More...http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04/19/rand-paul-rips-hillary-surveillance-other-republicans-at-gop-summit/

I'm sure if they allow themselves to be continually shaken down by Serbia or Croatia then they'll be allowed to stay in operation. Either that, or form an alliance w/ one or the other and see how things go. It's a free state project for Europe for those that can't make the US version in NH.

When this concept was originally floated, it was like having $400k in assets or purchasing ~$250k property but to my knowledge this is no longer an option. I wouldn't even know what you'd do for a living down there if you didn't have an operating business to bring w/ you.

In addition to all the soldiers from the Allied countries that lost lives and all the lost treasure to fight Hitler, Hitler screwed over his own people as millions of them died creating lost generations and millions of women were raped when the war was concluded. There is nothing "right" about any of that.

Defense attorneys have to present the best possible case for their defendants or eventually risk their Bar license. They are by the books and don't get too personal if they deem it's not in their interests. Finally, they love the excitement behind not guilty verdicts.

Laugh out loud, you're dreaming if you think there's a shot for double digits again. The mid 1xx ranges will see a fury of buying like never before seen, if that level even happens.

This thread is showing symptoms of the wall street observer thread, just w/o the main troll, the socks and stolfi.

I still think we're gonna creep up on 260ish, not sure how many shorts will get pinched in the process. I just wonder if we have to stoop lower in order to get back there.

I was considering buying but this show of force is enough for me to say lol. I won't buy this crap either way.

I'm not sure the default position should be milli-micro bits at this point rather than full quantities of bitcoin revenue tab as the prognosis. Lots can happen with stakes in the unknown or more than that.

Tonight the price has been holding above the last sideways situation by a buck or two. Perhaps, something will happen later today that will change the situation. I'm to the point of guessing/predicting upwards especially if this damn Silbert ETF is gonna make a move. Chillin ~224 atm.

I've never had a problem with the bank I use that links up w/ Coinbase in terms of buying coins from it and even selling here and there. However, in the event of the next rally coming forth and churning over significant amounts of fiat back, this is uncharted territory for me and not sure how it would work. That said, I have another account w/ Comerica and when I made the account I point blanked asked the manager about what would it look like to them if they saw 5 or 6 figures raining in. The account manager said there would be no problem and was really curious as I had talked about bitcoin with her. She asked me how I was doing with it considering the price had been coming down and I'm sure she had her own thoughts on the subject assuming all of what she heard about it back in the fall of 2014.

Jim Webb critiques Clinton-era foreign policy

Jim Webb laid out an implicit critique of two decades of Clinton foreign policy in Chicago on Wednesday night, saying the country has lacked strategic direction since Bill Clinton assumed the presidency.

He also took aim at the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya.

The former Democratic senator from Virginia continued to shy away from criticizing Hillary Clinton directly, as he has in recent months, but his critique amounted to one of the strongest contrasts he’s drawn between himself and Clinton to date.

“We really have not had a clear strategic doctrine since the end of the Cold War. I would say particularly since about 1993,” said Webb at an event at David Axelrod’s Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago. Left unsaid was the name of the president who took office that year: Bill Clinton.

Webb went on to talk about the toll of the Iraq War, citing an op-ed he wrote in 2002 warning that invading the country would be a “strategic blunder” — without referring to then-Sen. Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize the invasion. President Barack Obama’s opposition to that war became a decisive distinction in his 2008 primary victory over Clinton.

Webb then said the administration’s response to the Arab Spring had set back the United States’ standing in the Middle East, singling out the U.S.-led intervention in Libya in particular. “Sure, [Muammar] Qadhafi was a bad guy, we understand that, but we had no treaties in place, we had no Americans at risk, we were not under any threat of attack,” he said.

Webb did not mention that Hillary Clinton, in her latest memoir, takes credit for shaping the U.S. decision to intervene in Libya as secretary of state. But Axelrod did, asking Webb after his remarks whether Libya would become an issue in a primary contest between the two. “Certainly it is a major policy distinction between what I was saying and what the administration was doing,” said Webb, who recounted his failed efforts to bring military action in Libya up for debate on the Senate floor.

Pressed again by Axelrod about whether Libya would become an issue should both he and Clinton run, Webb threw up his hands and responded, “Stay tuned.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/jim-webb-critiques-clinton-era-foreign-policy-116796.html

Oh come on. For one, the only real libertarian is someone that doesn't want to use coercion to achieve political or social goals, thus only a voluntaryist or anarcho-capitalist would be a legitimate version of a real and true libertarian. Politics, voting, what have you by default is participation in government and using it for your end goals. Salon, out of all places, is some far out progressive fish wrapper of a website and they are scared that Rand can appeal to many true progressives on things like foreign policy, reigning in wall street/banker bailouts, civil liberties reforms - all of which Hillary is terrible on and is equal to the likes of Dick Cheney on.

Things are stacked against third parties so the only political means of bringing real liberty into the discussion is injecting libertarians as republicans into local, state and federal offices and building coalitions. Furthermore, as so-called real libertarians that have nothing going for them, you need higher level mouth pieces like Rand to get these issues out into the public mindset.

Rand Paul’s Brother: “No Difference” Between Rand And My Dad On Ideology

Rand Paul’s Brother: “No Difference”

“The difference is purely in implementation. If you had a philosophical discussion on what the world should look like, there would be no difference.”


Rand Paul’s brother says that when it comes to ideology, there’s “no difference” between his brother, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate, and his father, the former congressman and three-time presidential candidate.


Ronnie Paul, the eldest son of the former congressman and sometimes-surrogate for his brother, was speaking with libertarian podcaster Israel Anderson. He said that both his brother and father held the same beliefs, there’s just a difference in the implementation of how to get there.


“The difference is purely in implementation,” Paul’s eldest son said. “If you had a philosophical discussion on what the world should look like, there would be no difference.”


As he runs for president, Rand Paul faces the task of both appealing to a broader set of mainstream Republican primary voters, while maintaining enough credibility with the vast Paul family libertarian network to get those people to the polls in early states.

Over the last year, he has sharpened his rhetoric on defense and terrorism. He signed Sen. Tom Cotton’s letter about a potential Iran nuclear deal and recently proposed increasing defense spending, though the increase was offset by other cuts. Last summer, he supported intervention against ISIS, and said, in his presidential announcement speech, “the enemy is radical Islam, you can’t get around it.” When he was a surrogate for his dad in 2007 and 2008 the Kentucky senator often spoke of American interventionism as a cause of terrorism and the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.


“Basically, if we’re both going the same place you may have a favorite way to get there and I may have a little different way to get there. We both are going to the same place and I can’t even say that your way maybe is better than my way, you know, we can debate all day long which way is the best way,” said Ronnie Paul in the recent interview.


“So they’ve taken different paths. Do you take little pieces at a time, do you try for the whole thing at one time? You know, there’s all different debate on how do you get to ultimately limited government, a pro-American defense foreign policy and Bill of rights, individual liberties for the people at home.”


Ronnie Paul added in a philosophical discussion on ideology there “would be no difference” between his dad and brother and “the end goal without a doubt is the same.”

Audio as well w/ Ronnie the bro...http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rand-pauls-brother-no-difference-between-rand-and-my-dad-on#.cnpdOWzD9

Rand Paul slams GOP foreign policy hawks

NASHUA, N.H.—Rand Paul ripped into his hawkish rivals for the Republican nomination Saturday, suggesting that problems in the Middle East would actually be worse under them than President Barack Obama.

“There’s a group of folks in our party who would have troops in six countries right now — maybe more,” the Kentucky senator told hundreds of activists at a GOP cattle call that has drawn every major presidential aspirant. “This is something, if you watch closely, that will separate me from many other Republicans. The other Republicans will criticize Hillary Clinton and the president for their foreign policy, but they would have done the same thing – just 10 times over!”

The Kentucky senator went on the offensive against the militarists in his own party – using his strongest language on the subject since formally kicking off his candidacy two weeks ago.

Speaking of the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Paul asked: “Why the hell did we ever go into Libya in the first place?”

...

More...http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/rand-paul-slams-gop-hawks-117107.html

Fox News: Rand Paul says secret scandal will wreck Hillary's campaign - and my guess it has to do with 'orgy island' - the whole thing w/ Bill and one of the Princes of the UK hanging out w/o underage prostitutes or sex slaves at that rich guys crib down in the Caribbean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f_6eKHVpKo
relatively short segment of discussion

If it were to come to that, it would likely have to be country SWAT vs Fed SWAT which would be terrible PR for the feds and question their overall legitimacy. Similarly, this is why they back down at the Bundy Ranch since news flies fast these days rather than say, back during Waco or Ruby Ridge.

Even though BFL came through in the end for me, the fact that they allowed themselves to be backlogged to the point that it took them 6 months to ship me my rig - is what sours me on them. I'm like whatever at this point.