Say what you want about his father but Ron would have expressed his feelings on the issue. Rand is too worried about what could hurt him in 2016. He's just another GOP fraud.

I have met liberals who believe it's ok to make common cause with him on issues where we agree.


And I've met a lot of "liberals" on here who like to pretend every Democrat who isn't Obama is secretly a Paulbot (tm).

I don't see anything wrong with it.

and was a painful, I mean P A I N F U L dodge to avoid either taking his SUPPOSED position (no military interventionalism abroad) which would put him in a bad spot with more hawkish republicans OR saying he is OK with it, which would run counter to his brand.

My eyes bled reading that babble ...

(by supporting the Syrian rebels) where ISIS was able to thrive.

We shouldn't have done that, but now ISIS are running amok in Iraq it's probably a good idea to put a brake on them.

(Although it should have been done much sooner).

if you decipher it there might be some truth to it ...

But, it was a dodge.

He was asked about his position on the use of bombing in Iraq and went on some tangent to sound all knowledgeable while not answering the question ...

but he'll continue to get love on DU as long as he gives his cultists the occasional anti-NSA soundbite...

I don't know where you're looking cause I sure don't see the love.

Sometimes, he says something right about things. Acknowledging that doesn't equate to love.

Hillary Democrats like using "crazy libertarians" to force liberals away from taking pro-civil liberties stances. Don't let them do so. What is right will always be right, no matter who says it.

Sure, Rand Paul believes in Rand Paul being President, not much else. Even if he does have a few decent principles, you can count on him selling them out before he can actually accomplish anything positive.

Such is the state of US National Politics. Find me one candidate who won't sell out his/her principles and they will have my vote and support! And not someone with crazy ideas like Ron Paul.

And for the record, despite his prelude about bombing ISIS, his argument did seem to be that we shouldn't have intervened in Syria the first place, which I agree with, and also is "non-interventionist". I don't even support non-interventionism in a dogmatic sense, but really this is a lot better than what Hillary has been saying.

In virtually every conflict between the TeaPubliKlan agenda and his supposed libertarian principles, TeaPubliKlan wins.

This is not to endorse libertarianism but to point out the guy is a phony, a hypocrite, and just a con man working an angle.