Yeah, you're definitely way out on a limb, because you're wrong. Of course, anyone who cannot take 2 minutes to grasp what's been said has no place in forming a credible opinion.

I don't really feel like reading it, because there's probably little to no real substance other than face time. Look, I've been on the Rand Paul bandwagon for years (way before his drones filibuster), but him going on CNN is essentially a pandering to voters that aren't typically Republicans. We won't go back into Iraq unless something majorly unpredictable happens; it is not politically smart. If Obama did go back, he'd be hypocritical and the American public would fry him alive. Rand is essentially just saying that he's a Republican that doesn't support substantial involvement to save face from the likes of McCain or Cheney currently.

Agreed. I just don't like your passive aggressiveness. It's really annoying.

Sorry. :/ I do it at a lot because I run into extreme amount of edgy teens now in political threads who think they know everything and others don't know anything; especially when they want to debate straight ideology. -blam!-, today I had something assume that I didn't know what gerrymandering was so he wrote what it was and provided a picture of it; this was after I only asked him if his opinion on something was that it was a reserved state's right.

Yes.

As expected, I guess, for anyone that feels like being politically smart with this at the moment.

Pretty much this is going to be another Rand Paul circlejerk vs everyone else thread.

No, this will be an anti-war bashing fest by Sgt Mag.

>not one post of mine has been "let's go to war in Iraq" >posted a thread the other day that no one read that explained why I am against military intervention inside Iraq at this time K.