# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday

## tsai3904

The resolution was amended in a Senate Foreign Relations hearing in April (changes in bold).  I'm thinking Rand had something to do with it and that he'll probably vote for the resolution.




> S. RES. 65
> 
> Strongly supporting the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urging the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation.
> 
> SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
> 
> Congress--
> 
> (1) reaffirms the special bonds of friendship and cooperation that have existed between the United States and the State of Israel for more than sixty years and that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and among the people of the United States;
> ...

----------


## Warlord

That's a lot better than I feared.

The worst thing this week out of that committee is going to be the arming and funding of Al Qeada and the Osama bin Laden brigades:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Laden-Brigade

----------


## Brett85

I hope he votes against it.  We don't need yet another 80 page thread arguing about something Rand did.

----------


## Sola_Fide

#standwithIsrul

----------


## Christian Liberty

C'mon Rand, you can vote against this crap, and you should.

----------


## Brett85

This should be a vote that Ron's foreign policy group scores for their ratings, and Rand should lose points in the rating system if he votes for it.

----------


## tsai3904

> I hope he votes against it.  We don't need yet another 80 page thread arguing about something Rand did.


I think he'll vote for it given his support for sanctions on Iran, his statement about an attack on Israel is..., and the change that he made to the bill in (8).

----------


## Brett85

> I think he'll vote for it given his support for sanctions on Iran, his statement about an attack on Israel is..., and the change that he made to the bill in (8).


This bill doesn't mention "an attack on Israel."  The bill is stating that our government should help Israel carry out a *preemptive* attack against Iran.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This should be a vote that Ron's foreign policy group scores for their ratings, and Rand should lose points in the rating system if he votes for it.


Yeah.  Going to be interesting to see how that plays out in the coming years.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> (1) reaffirms the special bonds of friendship and cooperation that have existed between the United States and the State of Israel for more than sixty years and that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress *and among the people of the United States*;


I'm tired of being "forced" by congress.  They should leave me out of their bull$#@!. They didn't ask me, nor do they care.

----------


## tsai3904

> The bill is stating that our government should help Israel carry out a *preemptive* attack against Iran.


Now that you mentioned that, I re-read the change in (8) and noticed that the word "legitimate" was added before self-defense (most likely by Rand).

----------


## PSYOP

If Rand votes for the resolution I'm not voting for him in 2016. Period.

----------


## Warlord

> This should be a vote that Ron's foreign policy group scores for their ratings, and Rand should lose points in the rating system if he votes for it.


I dont think he's worried too much about that.

A lot of the GOP base want war and that's who he needs to win over.  Sad but true.

----------


## tsai3904

> If Rand votes for the resolution I'm not voting for him in 2016. Period.


This is a non-binding resolution.  He's already voted for sanctions.  Wouldn't a vote for sanctions be worse than this non-binding resolution?

----------


## Brett85

> I dont think he's worried too much about that.
> 
> A lot of the GOP base want war and that's who he needs to win over.  Sad but true.


And I suppose the GOP war mongers are going to fund his campaign?

----------


## Brett85

I'm not going to criticize him until he actually votes for it.  I'm holding out hope that he'll vote against it since he was one of the few Senators who didn't co-sponsor it.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> This is a non-binding resolution.  He's already voted for sanctions.  Wouldn't a vote for sanctions be worse than this non-binding resolution?


If they just wanted to give Israel a blow job, they could do that in private (on their own time and dime) and leave our country out of it.

----------


## Warlord

> And I suppose the GOP war mongers are going to fund his campaign?


No but Rand has to look somewhat hawkish to your average USA, USA, USA pro-war voter in IA and SC.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> A lot of the GOP base want war and that's who he needs to win over.  Sad but true.


Then they are a bunch of murderers and you are a supporter of murder like them if you give consent to that type of thinking.  Don't you see the evil of that?

----------


## Brett85

> No but Rand has to look somewhat hawkish to your average USA, USA, USA pro-war voter in IA and SC.


He's already voted for sanctions.  People can't claim that he just wants to "do nothing" and "allow Iran to get nuclear weapons" when he's voted for the sanctions.

----------


## Warlord

> Then they are a bunch of murderers and you are a supporter of murder like them if you give consent to that type of thinking.  Don't you see the evil of that?


That's the GOP for you. It's still pretty pro-war and neocons like Rubio will be employing that rhetoric and relying on it.

Hunting for votes is not evil.  It's what you do with power that counts.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Then they are a bunch of murderers and you are a supporter of murder like them if you give consent to that type of thinking.  Don't you see the evil of that?


True.  I just read this over, if he votes for it I'm honestly probably done...

I initially thought it was just a "Defend Israel if they get attacked" resolution and I can live with that even though I don't like it.  But advocating premptive war is just too much.

Rand: NO!  Do not do this, or I am not going to vote for you.  Period.



> Yeah.  Going to be interesting to see how that plays out in the coming years.


It will...  Ron might be forced to do something he doesn't want to.

----------


## Brett85

> That's the GOP for you. It's still pretty pro-war and neocons like Rubio will be employing that rhetoric and relying on it.


Independents can also vote in many of the primaries and caucuses in 2016.

----------


## Brett85

My fear is that Rand will vote for it since I read that it passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "unanimously," and Rand is a member of that committee.  But, I'm not exactly sure what that means.  Sometimes it simply passes by "voice vote" and there is no actual vote on a bill.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I can't in my state.  I may want to watch this one before I register to vote because I'm only going to register Republican if I actually have something to gain from doing so.  And I will not support Rand if he votes for this.  Supporting actual preemptive war (I did state that I'd give him the benefit of the doubt if he supported DEFENDING an ally, even though I don't agree with that, but I have consistently stated that I will not tolerate a vote for outright initiating war) has always been my line in the sand.  If Rand  does this and he still wins, good for him, especially if he really is using the whole Leninist strategy, but I can only go by what he says and what he does.  If he votes for this, I will assume the worst.  I can't openly vote for evil.

----------


## tsai3904

> True.  I just read this over, if he votes for it I'm honestly probably done...


Second time someone's said this and still don't understand this logic.

If he votes against this non binding resolution, you'll still support him even though he's voted for actual sanctions?

----------


## PSYOP

Love how someone just -rep me for saying if Rand Paul votes for an illegal & immoral war then I'm not voting for him, bwaahhaha.

----------


## tsai3904

> Love how someone just -rep me for saying if Rand Paul votes for an illegal & immoral war then I'm not voting for him, bwaahhaha.


Would you still support Rand if he votes against this non-binding resolution but knowing that he's voted for sanctions?

----------


## tsai3904

FYI, Rand voted against the last non-binding resolution (he was the only NO vote) because he was afraid it was a vote for pre-emptive war.

http://rt.com/usa/rand-paul-senate-iran-756/

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Second time someone's said this and still don't understand this logic.
> 
> If he votes against this non binding resolution, you'll still support him even though he's voted for actual sanctions?


I don't like sanctions, but that's a compromise I can live with.  I can't live with support for actual war for any reason.

Opposition to free trade sucks as a policy, but isn't nearly equivalent to supporting outright murder.  Rand would be implicitly supporting murder by government (Which is even worse, for the record, than supporting a mere "Right to murder" like the pro-choice, Roe v Wade advocates do).  I can't vote for that.  It would be evil.

If Rand really is undercover, good luck.  He's not going to win or lose on one vote.  I'm standing on my principles on this issue.

If Rand decides the neoconservatives are more important than people like me, he's losing me.  I gave him a little leg room with the sanctions comments and the "We'll protect Israel if they actually get attacked" comments, but to outright support actually attacking anyone is not something I'll vote for.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FYI, Rand voted against the last non-binding resolution (he was the only NO vote) because he was afraid it was a vote for pre-emptive war.
> 
> http://rt.com/usa/rand-paul-senate-iran-756/


Good for Rand.   If he doesn't do it again, that means DC is starting to control him.

Rand Paul is the best senator we have but I will not vote for ANYBODY who supports outright preemptive war.

----------


## tsai3904

> If Rand really is undercover, good luck.  He's not going to win or lose on one vote.  I'm standing on my principles on this issue.


Rand doesn't support pre-emptive war, whether he votes for this resolution or not.

The last time he voted against an Iran resolution was because he's against a pre-emptive war.  He also spoke for an hour against it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtdY9SGPq5E

----------


## Christian Liberty

If he votes for this, he's voting for preemptive war.  In my opinion its immoral to vote for someone who supports that, no matter the reason.

If he spoke for an hour in the past, and now he votes for it, he should get out of the senate NOW because the District of Criminals is getting to him.  There is a thing called "Corruption" and I don't think anyone other than Ron Paul has total immunity.  Immunity isn't genetic either.

----------


## Rudeman

Just curious what part of this are you guys determining as advocating for preemptive war? I didn't see that when I read it.

----------


## RonPaulFanInGA

Oh Lordy, it's already starting and the vote is two days away.  Think I'll avoid this website on Wednesday and Thursday to get away from the inevitable bickering.  Even if he votes against this resolution, the arguing will probably still happen.

----------


## Brett85

I'm hoping that the fact that he didn't cosponsor this bill means that he opposes it, but the fact that this bill apparently passed the Foreign Senate Relations Committee "unanimously" worries me.

----------


## tsai3904

> If he votes for this, he's voting for preemptive war.


That's your opinion.

When Ron voted for the AUMF, Ron was voting to go into Afghanistan and get out.  He wasn't voting for this 11 year war and drones into Yemen, Pakistan, etc.  Many people interpret bills differently.

Rand has made it abundantly clear he is against pre-emptive war through hours of speeches and this vote won't change it.  He may see that his changes prevent a pre-emptive war.

----------


## Christian Liberty

You know, in one breath the Randroids say that Rand Paul is playing the game with his words, but votes like a libertarian, so disregard what he says, his votes reflect his Ron Paulian values.  In the next, they say, it doesn't matter how he votes because he says the right things.

See how silly this is?

The bottom line is that the Randroids are nepotists, will never believe that Ron Paul could even exaggerate about his own son (These same people frequently make up actual compromises by Ron Paul that never actually happened, or bring up the stupid newsletter crap).  Honestly, you guys are just making me even less  confident that Rand is outside the system with the cognitive dissonance.

I can live with a vote for sanctions, I think its stupid, but it doesn't outright murder anyone like war does.  I won't tolerate Rand voting for real war whatever phony justifications the Rand Paul Worshippers can create.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh Lordy, it's already starting and the vote is two days away.  Think I'll avoid this website on Wednesday and Thursday to get away from the inevitable bickering.  Even if he votes against this resolution, the arguing will probably still happen.


If he votes against it, I'll completely support that choice.  He has a chance to get me to trust him here.




> That's your opinion.
> 
> When Ron voted for the AUMF, Ron was voting to go into Afghanistan and get out.  He wasn't voting for this 11 year war and drones into Yemen, Pakistan, etc.  Many people interpret bills differently.
> 
> Rand has made it abundantly clear he is against pre-emptive war through hours of speeches and this vote won't change it.  He may see that his changes prevents a pre-emptive war.


As much as I'm not really a fan of Afghanistan here, at least we were KIND OF attacked.   We weren't really attacked by Afghanistan, but the original intent of the AUMF as Ron Paul understood it was to get the terrorists that attacked 9/11.  Honestly, considering blowback, I'm not sure that was a good idea, but there was nothing wrong with it on principle.

Bombing Iran, on the other hand, is wrong and murderous on PRINCIPLE.  There's nothing "Defensive" about that.

If this bill was worded like "If Iran uses nuclear weapons against Israel" or "If terrorists fly in from Iran and attack us" or something that might be different.  But this bill clearly states that if Iran even tries to BUILD nukes we can attack them.  No.  you vote for this crap, I'm not voting for crap.

And yes, one vote can define crap.  Not in every circumstance, but with something this serious, yes.

----------


## tsai3904

> You know, in one breath the Randroids say that Rand Paul is playing the game with his words, but votes like a libertarian, so disregard what he says, his votes reflect his Ron Paulian values.  In the next, they say, it doesn't matter how he votes because he says the right things.


Who said it doesn't matter how he votes?

The argument is how you INTERPET the bills...

You may see this as a vote for pre-emptive war while others will not...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Who said it doesn't matter how he votes?
> 
> The argument is how you INTERPET the bills...
> 
> You may see this as a vote for pre-emptive war while others will not...


Honestly?  I don't think Rand Paul supports this in his heart of hearts.   I think his dad raised him better than that.  

But I'm not going to support someone who VOTES for aggressive war, whether he actually believes in it or not.  I'm done with that game.  And I'm more than happy to "Waste" my vote in the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party rather than to vote for evil.  Rand had best pay attention to the liberty movement.

----------


## Brett85

Now that I read this resolution again, the resolution is actually far worse than it was before it was amended in committee.  Before the resolution was amended, the resolution could've been seen as simply coming to Israel's defense if they get attacked.  But after it was amended in committee in now says, "against Iran's nuclear weapons program."  That wording wasn't included in the original resolution.  The amended resolution is far worse than the original resolution.

----------


## tsai3904

> Now that I read this resolution again, the resolution is actually far worse than it was before it was amended in committee.  Before the resolution was amendment, the resolution could've been seen as simply coming to Israel's defense if they get attacked.  But after it was amended in committee in now says, "against Iran's nuclear weapons program."  That wording wasn't included in the original resolution.  The amended resolution is far worse than the original resolution.


No, that makes it better by limiting US' actions to specific acts.  If the "Iran's nuclear weapons program" wasn't included, they could conceivably use any excuse to support whatever action they want for any reason.

----------


## Rudeman

> If he votes against it, I'll completely support that choice.  He has a chance to get me to trust him here.
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I'm not really a fan of Afghanistan here, at least we were KIND OF attacked.   *We weren't really attacked by Afghanistan, but the original intent of the AUMF as Ron Paul understood it was to get the terrorists that attacked 9/11.*  Honestly, considering blowback, I'm not sure that was a good idea, but there was nothing wrong with it on principle.
> 
> Bombing Iran, on the other hand, is wrong and murderous on PRINCIPLE.  There's nothing "Defensive" about that.
> 
> If this bill was worded like "If Iran uses nuclear weapons against Israel" or "If terrorists fly in from Iran and attack us" or something that might be different.  But this bill clearly states that if Iran even tries to BUILD nukes we can attack them.  No.  you vote for this crap, I'm not voting for crap.
> ...



See right here you're going into what Ron Paul interpreted it as, what if Rand doesn't interpret this resolution as supporting pre-emptive war. Has Rand not been clear on his opposition to pre-emptive war? It even took you reading it twice to interpret it a different way.

----------


## JCDenton0451

Rand will have to vote in favor of this crap, or else his new Evangelical friends might suspect that he really is a libertarian after all.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Now that I read this resolution again, the resolution is actually far worse than it was before it was amended in committee.  Before the resolution was amended, the resolution could've been seen as simply coming to Israel's defense if they get attacked.  But after it was amended in committee in now says, "against Iran's nuclear weapons program."  That wording wasn't included in the original resolution.  The amended resolution is far worse than the original resolution.


Would you still vote for Rand if he votes for preemptive war?

----------


## Brett85

> No, that makes it better by limiting US' actions to specific acts.  If the "Iran's nuclear weapons program" wasn't included, they could conceivably use any excuse to support whatever action they want for any reason.


If it hadn't been amended the language would simply say "self defense," which would simply mean that we would only be coming to Israel's defense if they were attacked, since that's what "self defense" actually means.  By including the phrase "against Iran's nuclear weapons program," it changes the resolution from one where we pledge to help out Israel if they get attacked to a resolution where we pledge to help out Israel carry out a preemptive attack against Iran.

----------


## Rudeman

> Now that I read this resolution again, the resolution is actually far worse than it was before it was amended in committee.  Before the resolution was amended, the resolution could've been seen as simply coming to Israel's defense if they get attacked.  But after it was amended in committee in now says, "against Iran's nuclear weapons program."  That wording wasn't included in the original resolution.  The amended resolution is far worse than the original resolution.



I disagree, the initial resolution was much broader. The rewrite limits it to just Iran's nuclear weapons program whereas the original could be interpreted to mean that we should support Israel in any instance of defense (including the Iranian weapons program).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> See right here you're going into what Ron Paul interpreted it as, what if Rand doesn't interpret this resolution as supporting pre-emptive war. Has Rand not been clear on his opposition to pre-emptive war? It even took you reading it twice to interpret it a different way.


You know what, honestly, I have a crapload more reason to take Ron Paul at his word than Rand.  Granted, I trust Rand more than any other Senator, but Ron Paul's record was a lot longer and he NEVER compromised.

Plus, Ron voted right after 9/11.  This is ten years later.  There was more excuse to panic right after 9/11 than there is right now, if nothing else.

Ron Paul viewed what he did as self-defense.  Which turned out to be wrong, but was actually plausible when he cast the vote.  Ron Paul also regretted his.

There's NO WAY this resolution is about defense.  Rand knows better, heck, honestly I think a five year old would know better.  If Rand is really that dumb I don't want him in the White House.

----------


## Brett85

> Would you still vote for Rand if he votes for preemptive war?


I'm not sure.  I think this is a terrible resolution, but I'm still not sure if it's actually a vote for "preemptive war."  The resolution does say this:  

"Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

That doesn't make it a good resolution, but it does mean that this resolution couldn't be used as any kind of legal authority for an attack on Iran.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Which, Rand isn't that dumb.   He's freaking brilliant. And so I hold him accountable.  If he sucks up to the neocons, he's not worth my time.  I'd rather stand on the sidelines than vote for evil.   This is a critical one for me.  Rand, stand strong!

----------


## tsai3904

> If it hadn't been amended the language would simply say "self defense," which would simply mean that we would only be coming to Israel's defense if they were attacked, since that's what "self defense" actually means.  By including the phrase "against Iran's nuclear weapons program," it changes the resolution from one where we pledge to help out Israel if they get attacked to a resolution where we pledge to help out Israel carry out a preemptive attack against Iran.


I see it differently.

If all you say is self-defense, that can mean self defense from hundreds of things.  If someone from Iran shot a missile into Israel and this had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, this resolution can justify any action as coming to Israel's self-defense.

By adding "legitimate" and "nuclear program", you are limiting the actions of Iran that fit into that category.

----------


## Rudeman

> If it hadn't been amended the language would simply say "self defense," which would simply mean that we would only be coming to Israel's defense if they were attacked, since that's what "self defense" actually means.  By including the phrase "against Iran's nuclear weapons program," it changes the resolution from one where we pledge to help out Israel if they get attacked to a resolution where we pledge to help out Israel carry out a preemptive attack against Iran.


Self-defense is still there, in fact it was bolstered to now say legitimate self-defense and the support in legitimate self-defense is only limited to only be provided against the Iranian weapons program.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not sure.  I think this is a terrible resolution, but I'm still not sure if it's actually a vote for "preemptive war."  The resolution does say this:  
> 
> "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."
> 
> That doesn't make it a good resolution, but it does mean that this resolution couldn't be used as any kind of legal authority for an attack on Iran.


They'd technically have to vote for it again, sure.  But this is basically supporting the idea that a bombing of Iran is legitimate self-defense.  I won't vote for anyone who believes that.

Since you're not sure, I'm guessing you at least understand my point.  This is an ethical issue for me.  To me this is even worse than being "pro-choice", since I believe it is worse to outright support killing people than it is just sit there and do nothing while people are killed.  Heck, in some circumstances I think "Sitting there and doing nothing" is the right thing to do, although not in the abortion case.  I NEVER support preemptive war, nor can I vote for someone who will.  I can live with sanctions and bases, but outright voting for warfare is too much.  If Rand Paul asked for my support after that vote, I'd simply quote Romans 3:8.

----------


## T.hill

> True.  I just read this over, if he votes for it I'm honestly probably done...
> 
> I initially thought it was just a "Defend Israel if they get attacked" resolution and I can live with that even though I don't like it.  But advocating premptive war is just too much.
> 
> Rand: NO!  Do not do this, or I am not going to vote for you.  Period.
> 
> 
> It will...  Ron might be forced to do something he doesn't want to.


What? Whatever Rand does, whether initially perceived as good or bad usually has approval from Ron. Ron is probably in regular contact with his son and probably discuss politics more often than not. 

Not to mention Rand and Ron literally are 99 percent the same in policy.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Self-defense is still there, in fact it was bolstered to now say legitimate self-defense and the support in legitimate self-defense is only limited to only be provided against the Iranian weapons program.


You can't use self-defense against a weapons' PROGRAM.  Everything in this bill supports the ridiculous neocon definition of "Self-defense."

----------


## tsai3904

> There's NO WAY this resolution is about defense.  Rand knows better, heck, honestly I think a five year old would know better.  If Rand is really that dumb I don't want him in the White House.


No one here supports this resolution but there's already people who disagree with you that this resolution is a vote for pre-emptive war.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What? Whatever Rand does, whether initially perceived as good or bad usually has approval from Ron. Ron is probably in regular contact with his son and probably discuss politics more often than not. 
> 
> Not to mention Rand and Ron literally are 99 percent the same in policy.


Ron Paul will never support this crap.   If RON Paul supported this crap I'd honestly just become depressed, and probably be inspired to run for congress myself so I could do better.  But he won't.  RON Paul is a man of principle.  I'm not saying Rand is bad, he's a good man, but he's playing to win.  There's only so much of that that I'm willing  to support on ethical grounds.  Ron Paul didn't give a hoot about winning.

Ron Paul called sanctions an ACT OF WAR.  I don't even agree with Ron, but that's how seriously he regarded that.  He's courteous to his son but that doesn't mean he supports the crappy things that Rand supports.  And Ron will NEVER support a vote for preemptive war.  They called him "Dr. No" for a reason, he didn't do this crap.

----------


## Rudeman

> You know what, honestly, I have a crapload more reason to take Ron Paul at his word than Rand.  Granted, I trust Rand more than any other Senator, but Ron Paul's record was a lot longer and he NEVER compromised.
> 
> Plus, Ron voted right after 9/11.  This is ten years later.  There was more excuse to panic right after 9/11 than there is right now, if nothing else.
> 
> Ron Paul viewed what he did as self-defense.  Which turned out to be wrong, but was actually plausible when he cast the vote.  Ron Paul also regretted his.
> 
> There's NO WAY this resolution is about defense.  Rand knows better, heck, honestly I think a five year old would know better.  If Rand is really that dumb I don't want him in the White House.


I'm not judging Ron's vote, you rightly pointed out that Ron based his vote on what he interpreted it as yet you're not willing to give Rand the same benefit. I've read this more than once and I'm still not sure how you guys are interpreting it as advocating pre-emptive war. Can one of you explain why you think it does?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No one here supports this resolution but there's already people who disagree with you that this resolution is a vote for pre-emptive war.


I'm not trying to be personally offensive here, to be clear.  I just can't do this.  Supporting Rand is honestly like riding a roller coaster, but I can deal with the big drops.  I can't deal with outright flying off, if that makes sense.  

Its obvious to me that this is supporting the neocon definition of "Self-defense."  You can't use self-defense against a PROGRAM.  If the bill said "If Iran does so and so to Israel, we will intervene" that would be just another "We'll defend Israel if they get attacked" statement.  I don't like that, but I can live with that level of deviation.  But that's not what it says.  It clearly implies that Iran building a nuke (Most likely to stop us from creating another Iraq there) is an "Attack on Israel."

Sorry, Rand, but no.  You won't get my vote if you do that crap.

----------


## Rudeman

> You can't use self-defense against a weapons' PROGRAM.  Everything in this bill supports the ridiculous neocon definition of "Self-defense."


It was re-written to add legitimate self-defense. How would a pre-emptive attack be interpreted as legitimate self-defense?

----------


## Christian Liberty

To those who think it isn't an act of war...



> (4) recognizes the tremendous threat posed to the United States, the West, and Israel by the Government of Iran's continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability;
> 
> (5) reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability and to t*ake such action as may be necessary to implement this policy;*


So, even war, if thats what it takes.  Its clearly implied.  No.

And if that's not enough




> (8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in *legitimate* self-defense _against Iran's nuclear weapons program_, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide*, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force,* diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.


Italicized the important provision.  How can you "Defend" against a PROGRAM?  This isn't about the ridiculous scenario of iran nuking Israel, this is about Iran trying to get nukes period.  Its clearly implying support for preemptive war.


And honestly, I do really trust Ron more than I do Rand.  His record was/is purer.  Call me a nuthead, but that's how it is.

Even still, I'm willing to give Rand the benefit of the doubt on a wide variety of issues.  On war, the Fed, and guns (Probably in that order) I demand stricter adherence to libertarianism than on other isssues.

----------


## Christian Liberty

"Legitimate" really just means "Legal" and its clear that the neocon definition of "Self-defense" is legal now.

----------


## T.hill

> Ron Paul will never support this crap.   If RON Paul supported this crap I'd honestly just become depressed, and probably be inspired to run for congress myself so I could do better.  But he won't.  RON Paul is a man of principle.  I'm not saying Rand is bad, he's a good man, but he's playing to win.  There's only so much of that that I'm willing  to support on ethical grounds.  Ron Paul didn't give a hoot about winning.
> 
> Ron Paul called sanctions an ACT OF WAR.  I don't even agree with Ron, but that's how seriously he regarded that.  He's courteous to his son but that doesn't mean he supports the crappy things that Rand supports.  And Ron will NEVER support a vote for preemptive war.  They called him "Dr. No" for a reason, he didn't do this crap.


Well, I'm just pointing out it's not like Rand has done a whole lot that Ron has disagreed with. You make it sound like Ron has been on the edge of disowning his son for awhile now, while in reality has supported almost everything he has done as a senator except his vote for sanctions on Iran. Of course we know philosophically Ron and Rand disagree on the implications of sanctions and their purpose. 

I'm not saying regardless of his vote you should blindly support him, even if Ron supports it, which would be odd.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, I'm just pointing out it's not like Rand has done a whole lot that Ron has disagreed with. You make it sound like Ron has been on the edge of disowning his son for awhile now, while in reality has supported almost everything he has done as a senator except his vote for sanctions on Iran. Of course we know philosophically Ron and Rand disagree on the implications of sanctions and their purpose. 
> 
> I'm not saying regardless of his vote you should blindly support him, even if Ron supports it, which would be odd.


I think 99% was an exaggeration, but not a blatant lie.  I technically agree with Rand, I don't think sanctions are an act of war, however, I agree with Ron that they are bad policy.  However, I'm willing to give Rand a pass on sanctions, and I can see how you can break either way on that.  Its the actual war that I'm not going to endorse, even if this is literally the only vote Ron and Rand disagree on, its enough.

And no, Ron would never disown his son over politics.  He's a better man than that, and he's also a better man than me.  I still won't endorse Rand if he makes it impossible for me to reconcile doing so with my conscience.

----------


## Rudeman

> To those who think it isn't an act of war...
> 
> 
> So, even war, if thats what it takes.  Its clearly implied.  No.
> 
> And if that's not enough
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.


How does it authorize any use of force when it explicitly states that none of it authorizes any use of force.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Because in spite of the line that will be ignored, it really does condone the use of force.  They'll pass another bill to officially sanction it, but they are already endorsing it with this bill.  And if Rand won't  vote against this crap on principle, I don't trust him to vote against the real AUMF either.  I don't make every vote a litmus test.  This one is.  Rand had better handle it correctly, or I'm going to vote third party.

----------


## T.hill

> To those who think it isn't an act of war...
> 
> 
> So, even war, if thats what it takes.  Its clearly implied.  No.
> 
> And if that's not enough
> 
> 
> 
> ...


His rhetoric was bolder, but his record was not purer, because that's subject to debate. The only vote perceived as negative was the vote for Iran sanctions, but not all libertarians always see sanctions as an act of war. 

Rand's voting record is solid.

----------


## Rudeman

> Because in spite of the line that will be ignored, it really does condone the use of force.  They'll pass another bill to officially sanction it, but they are already endorsing it with this bill.  And if Rand won't  vote against this crap on principle, I don't trust him to vote against the real AUMF either.  I don't make every vote a litmus test.  This one is.  Rand had better handle it correctly, or I'm going to vote third party.


So now Rand is to blame for future votes because you interpret it the way you do? They don't need this resolution to condone an attack against Iran.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> His rhetoric was bolder, but his record was not purer, because that's subject to debate. The only vote perceived as negative was the vote for Iran sanctions, but not all libertarians always see sanctions as an act of war. 
> 
> Rand's voting record is solid.


I don't think sanctions are an act of war either, I just think its stupid.  Rand also backed down on the CRA, supports laws against drug users, stated he was not a libertarian in order to dodge stupid stereotypes, still stands by his support of the War in Afghanistan, supported the use of drone strikes on US soil under limited circumstances (As opposed to NEVER) voted for the NDAA '13 (Yes, I know that wasn't the indefinite detention one, but he still should have voted against funding the military) and probably a couple others I don't remember.

All that said, Rand Paul's voting record IS solid overall.  But not impeccable.  The only mistakes on Ron Paul's record that I can think of are the AUMF 2001, which was understandable at the time and that he now regrets, and the vote for the PBA ban which I feel was a mistake since constitutionally that should be state level, even still, I'd have had a hard time voting against that one so I can understand that...

Rand has made many more serious mistakes in his votes AND his rhetoric.

I still believe he's a good man, but I don't absolutely trust him.  War is also a litmus test for me.  You must be consistently anti-war or I won't vote for you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So now Rand is to blame for future votes because you interpret it the way you do? They don't need this resolution to condone an attack against Iran.


He's not responsible if he votes it down.

----------


## Brett85

I'm hoping that the fact that he didn't co-sponsor the resolution means he'll vote against it.  I think he co-sponsored the sanctions bills that he voted for, so if he supported this resolution wouldn't he have co-sponsored it?  This is a list of all of the Senators who have co-sponsored this resolution.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c113uz5GVB::

----------


## tsai3904

> I'm hoping that the fact that he didn't co-sponsor the resolution means he'll vote against it.  I think he co-sponsored the sanctions bills that he voted for, so if he supported this resolution wouldn't he have co-sponsored it?  This is a list of all of the Senators who have co-sponsored this resolution.


I'm sure he didn't support the original version but he may support it after his changes.  I think rules don't allow you to cosponsor a bill after it passes out of committee.

----------


## Rudeman

> He's not responsible if he votes it down.


So let me get this straight, if Rand votes for this but doesn't vote for an attack against Iran then Rand should be held responsible as if he did support the attack?

----------


## supermario21

The problem is that Rand is on an island in the Senate when it comes to viewing these non-binding resolutions. Rand doesn't want preemptive war. He's said it numerous times. Just because Lindsey Graham may vote for a resolution with his own reasoning doesn't mean that Rand shares the reasoning behind the same "yes" vote.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So let me get this straight, if Rand votes for this but doesn't vote for an attack against Iran then Rand should be held responsible as if he did support the attack?


No, but he'd be responsible for voting for this...


See my response to supermario21



> The problem is that Rand is on an island in the Senate when it comes to viewing these non-binding resolutions. Rand doesn't want preemptive war. He's said it numerous times. Just because Lindsey Graham may vote for a resolution with his own reasoning doesn't mean that Rand shares the reasoning behind the same "yes" vote.


I don't care  what he says if his actions don't match up.  Look, this is a moral issue for me, I can't vote for anyone who supports this kind of preemptive murder of Iranians no matter whether the vote is "Binding" or not.  I wish you guys the best, but I just can't do it.  I can't justify it with my conscience.  If its really just me, its one vote and Rand can deal with it.  He'll get more from the neocons anyway.  On the other hand, if its a lot of us, maybe Rand will be forced to return to his base, which is a good thing.

----------


## Brett85

Unfortunately, it sounds like Rand might vote for it since there was "unanimous consent" to take up the resolution.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...iran-sanctions

----------


## tsai3904

> Unfortunately, it sounds like Rand might vote for it since there was "unanimous consent" to take up the resolution.
> 
> http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...iran-sanctions


That doesn't mean anything.  That just means there was agreement to vote on the resolution.

The last resolution was also brought to the floor and Rand voted against it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> That's the GOP for you. It's still pretty pro-war and neocons like Rubio will be employing that rhetoric and relying on it.
> 
> Hunting for votes is not evil.  It's what you do with power that counts.


Yes, it's what you do with power that counts.  Right now, he has the power to say NO.  I hope he uses it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand will have to vote in favor of this crap, or else his new Evangelical friends might suspect that he really is a libertarian after all.


Oh, dear.  Get that man some clothes!!

----------


## Rudeman

> No, but he'd be responsible for voting for this...
> 
> 
> See my response to supermario21
> 
> 
> I don't care  what he says if his actions don't match up.  Look, this is a moral issue for me, I can't vote for anyone who supports this kind of preemptive murder of Iranians no matter whether the vote is "Binding" or not.  I wish you guys the best, but I just can't do it.  I can't justify it with my conscience.  If its really just me, its one vote and Rand can deal with it.  He'll get more from the neocons anyway.  On the other hand, if its a lot of us, maybe Rand will be forced to return to his base, which is a good thing.



Ok so if Rand voted against pre-emptive war but he votes for this then you think he supports pre-emptive war? That doesn't make much sense to me (nevermind that I don't think this advocates for pre-emptive war).

----------


## Warlord

> Yes, it's what you do with power that counts.  Right now, he has the power to say NO.  I hope he uses it.


His power as a senator in the minority party is nothing compared to what it is if he were president.  In order to get to become president you have to have to cater to the morons (and the GOP has a lot of those).  If I were running i'd be voting for something like this although I didnt think he'd vote for Hagel but he did.

See, the problem is you like to rip every statement, every vote and every resolution and freak out over it.  It's really pointless and tiresome.  You want him to desperately be a pure libertarian and not wake up to the fact that he's only in the senate for a short period and is probably running for president.

His vote for or against this is neither here or there. This will pass easily with like 90+ votes.  You want him to be a No so you can smugly say yipeee. WHo cares if he is or not?

----------


## supermario21

I'd love for this to be 99-1, with Rand voting no, but I am just neutral on this. This isn't a vote to go to war, or call for regime change. I like the fireworks though.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ok so if Rand voted against pre-emptive war but he votes for this then you think he supports pre-emptive war? That doesn't make much sense to me (nevermind that I don't think this advocates for pre-emptive war).


If he regretted his vote and showed it by voting against war, I'd probably forgive him.  I don't hold grudges forever, after all.

On the other hand, if this is all I see until 2016... and Rand votes YES, I won't be there for him on election day.




> Yes, it's what you do with power that counts.  Right now, he has the power to say NO.  I hope he uses it.


This!

----------


## Warlord

it's tiresome.

----------


## Warlord

I wish there was an 8 page thread on stopping the arming of the Osama bin Laden brigades

THAT's the important work and vote Rand will do this week. Stopping that madness. 

Not some stupid resolution.  

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Laden-Brigade

----------


## Rudeman

> If he regretted his vote and showed it by voting against war, I'd probably forgive him.  I don't hold grudges forever, after all.
> 
> On the other hand, if this is all I see until 2016... and Rand votes YES, I won't be there for him on election day.
> 
> 
> This!


Well I'm sure if he supported a pre-emptive war that would be a grudge you would hold onto, right?

----------


## Brett85

> I'd love for this to be 99-1, with Rand voting no, but I am just neutral on this. This isn't a vote to go to war, or call for regime change. I like the fireworks though.


Rand wasn't afraid to be the only Senator to vote against the last Iran resolution.  I don't really see why he would go wobbly this time.  This resolution seems just as bad or worse than the last one.

----------


## tsai3904

> Rand wasn't afraid to be the only Senator to vote against the last Iran resolution.  I don't really see why he would go wobbly this time.  This resolution seems just as bad or worse than the last one.


The last resolution said containment is the only option.  Rand was opposed to that because it's tantamount to pre-emptive war.

Assuming Rand made the changes to this resolution, he may feel it's not as bad as the last resolution.  Who knows?  

By the way, there's going to be an hour of debate.  Rand may speak on this resolution.

Again, here was Rand during the last resolution:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFip8TclifU

----------


## Warlord

> Rand wasn't afraid to be the only Senator to vote against the last Iran resolution.  I don't really see why he would go wobbly this time.  This resolution seems just as bad or worse than the last one.


Who. Cares.

Worry about what Bob freakin' Corker is going to do when he arms Al  Qeada

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Laden-Brigade

These resolutions are meaningless. They pass them every week.

----------


## Brett85

> Who. Cares.
> 
> Worry about what Bob freakin' Corker is going to do when he arms Al  Qeada
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-Laden-Brigade
> 
> These resolutions are meaningless. They pass them every week.


Preemptive war with Iran would be far worse than sending arms to the rebels in Syria.

----------


## Warlord

> Preemptive war with Iran would be far worse than sending arms to the rebels in Syria.


This is a non-binding resolution.

It's going to pas with 90+ votes

The Senate passes these damn things every week and has done for decades. 

Whether Rand Paul votes yea or nay is IRRELEVANT.

Save your concern and 10 page threads for when they're passing bills... like they're doing with Syria.

----------


## Rudeman

> Preemptive war with Iran would be far worse than sending arms to the rebels in Syria.


This doesn't authorize pre-emptive war. So really it's more like is arming the rebels worse than saying we'd like to support Israel in the case of legitimate self-defense against the Iranian weapons program.

----------


## Brett85

> So really it's more like is arming the rebels worse than saying we'd like to support Israel in the case of legitimate self-defense against the Iranian weapons program.


What exactly is "legitimate self defense?"  If it were a case where Iran actually had weapons aimed at Israel and there was actually an imminent threat to Israel, and Israel used military force in order to protect themselves, that might be different.  But, it's highly unlikely if not impossible that an Israeli attack on Iran would actually occur under those circumstances.

----------


## tsai3904

> What exactly is "legitimate self defense?"


I'm sure it's vague for a reason.  There's no way Lindsey would have let Rand add whatever he wanted to the resolution.

It's going to be interpreted however each Senator wants.  It's kind of like that Feinstein amendment on indefinite detention.  McCain and Graham voted for it because it wasn't entirely clear how it would be interpreted.  They obviously had different reasons for supporting it than Rand.  Same will happen with this amendment IF Rand votes for it.  Both sides will spin it to their favor.

----------


## Brett85

Why would there be an hour set aside for "debate" if every Senator supports this resolution?

----------


## Rudeman

> What exactly is "legitimate self defense?"  If it were a case where Iran actually had weapons aimed at Israel and there was actually an imminent threat to Israel, and Israel used military force in order to protect themselves, that might be different.  But, it's highly unlikely if not impossible that an Israeli attack on Iran would actually occur under those circumstances.


To me, at least in today's political world (I don't support the bastardization of self-defense):
Self-defense = We must "defend" ourselves before they attack us.

Legitimate self-defense = We are about to be attacked or have already been attacked and use of force is the only way to prevent it or further attacks.


Or to put it in more individual terms:
Self-defense = Punching someone because he doesn't agree with you and one day may decide to start a fight.

Legitimate self-defense = You're in a heated argument get shoved and you respond with a punch or you see the person about to strike you and you respond by striking first.

----------


## Brett85

Well, even if Rand votes for this resolution, I hope he at least gets on the Senate floor and explains why he voted for it, that he doesn't view the resolution as being an endorsement of preemptive war.

----------


## Warlord

> Why would there be an hour set aside for "debate" if every Senator supports this resolution?


If it really interests you that much then tune into CSPAN and watch it.

I can save you the time and trouble though:  there will be a bunch of senators thumping their desk and sounding hawkish on Iran then it'll pass with 90+ votes.

----------


## tsai3904

> Why would there be an hour set aside for "debate" if every Senator supports this resolution?


It's called "debate" time but that doesn't mean there has to be debate.  Senators can speak in favor of the bill and report back to AIPAC.

However, there is the potential for Rand to be the only speaker against the resolution like last time.  Wait til Wednesday to find out.

----------


## Brett85

Yeah, I just hope he has the guts to vote against it.  Voting for these kind of resolutions won't help him gain any additional support, because Republican voters who want to go to war with Iran are going to vote for someone like Santorum or Rubio anyway.  If he votes for this it will only hurt him even further with the liberty movement.

----------


## Brett85

I wonder whether it's possible that any other Senator besides Rand could oppose it.  It's not likely, but maybe Bernie Sanders or someone like that will oppose it.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> If Rand votes for the resolution I'm not voting for him in 2016. Period.


What if Rand sacrificed his vote on the bill for a watering down of the sanctions?  Because this is where I think Ron Paul sold out on us, he would not trade a pawn for a bishop when he had the chance.

----------


## Feeding the Abscess

> What if Rand sacrificed his vote on the bill for a watering down of the sanctions?  Because this is where I think Ron Paul sold out on us, he would not trade a pawn for a bishop when he had the chance.


Even if Rand were doing this, Ron can't be criticized on the same grounds. The Senate works differently than the House, with the Senate possessing far greater ability to hold up or amend legislation.

Ron would frequently offer, co-sign, or even vote affirmatively on amendments to bills before voting against final passage, in an effort to make the final bill less repulsive.

----------


## Galileo Galilei

> Ron would frequently offer, co-sign, or even vote affirmatively on amendments to bills before voting against final passage, in an effort to make the final bill less repulsive.


That doesn't work once the opposition finds out about it.

----------


## Brett85

What time is this actually going to be voted on tomorrow?

----------


## tsai3904

> What time is this actually going to be voted on tomorrow?


Debate at 4pm and vote at 5pm ET.

----------


## compromise

Doesn't seem too bad. It's likely Rand will be the only vote against it, if he does. I'd urge him to vote for it, as this seems to be more about Israel than Iran, and I don't want someone running ads that he votes against Israel in 2016.

Syria is a bigger issue to me than Iran. Rand needs to continue his principled stance on non-intervention in that conflict.

----------


## Brett85

> Doesn't seem too bad. It's likely Rand will be the only vote against it, if he does. I'd urge him to vote for it, as this seems to be more about Israel than Iran, and I don't want someone running ads that he votes against Israel in 2016.
> 
> Syria is a bigger issue to me than Iran. Rand needs to continue his principled stance on non-intervention in that conflict.


It's a bill that pledges U.S support to Israel if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities.  That seems more important to me than funding the Syrian rebels or anything like that.  If this were just a bill that provided a limited amount of foreign aid to Israel or something like that, I wouldn't think it was that big of a deal.  But preemptive war is very important to me.

----------


## compromise

> It's a bill that pledges U.S support to Israel if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities.  That seems more important to me than funding the Syrian rebels or anything like that.  If this were just a bill that provided a limited amount of foreign aid to Israel or something like that, I wouldn't think it was that big of a deal.  But preemptive war is very important to me.


Israel probably won't attack Iran's nuclear facilities, and if they do, they'll make it very brief, as they did in Iraq.

----------


## supermario21

Votes will be at about 5pm, with the Farm Bill before Iran at 4.

----------


## tsai3904

Lindsey Graham ‏@GrahamBlog
Debate on the #StandwithIsrael resolution to start at 3:45 pm this afternoon.

----------


## supermario21

Lindsey Graham now taking pride in how there are 91 cosponsors...

----------


## supermario21

Graham now praising Rubio and how he "gets it." Rubio now taking a shot at Rand Paul talking about arming rebels. Says we can't stand idly by.

----------


## Brett85

> Lindsey Graham now taking pride in how there are 91 cosponsors...


Do you have a list of the cosponsors?  The last list I looked at showed about 85 cosponsors.

----------


## Brett85

I sure hope Rand doesn't vote for a resolution that Graham is pushing and strongly in favor of.

----------


## supermario21

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-...t=alphaByParty

----------


## supermario21

Rand is the only Republican not cosponsoring.

----------


## supermario21

Rockefeller, Sanders, Baldwin, Merkeley, Harkin are the others not signed on.

----------


## Brett85

Good, Rand still hasn't cosponsored it.  I hope that means he'll vote against it.  But, I'm not sure whether this resolution passing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "unanimously" means that Rand voted for it or simply allowed it to go through without objecting.

----------


## supermario21

McCain calling for war essentially on the floor.

----------


## supermario21

Menendez saying there will be a "strong bipartisan vote." Didn't say unanimous though...

----------


## tsai3904

Rand not speaking makes me think he's voting for it.  If he was going to vote no, I think he would want to make his case by reaffirming his support for Israel but why he disagrees with this particular resolution.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand not speaking makes me think he's voting for it.  If he was going to vote no, I think he would want to make his case by reaffirming his support for Israel but why he disagrees with this particular resolution.


Isn't there still like 35 minutes before the vote?

----------


## supermario21

Seems as if he was busy entertaining a special guest earlier...



Anyways, he was speaking at the Zionist Organization of America event today, and the NJDC got into a skirmish with them on twitter about Rand.

----------


## Brett85

I'm afraid Tsai might be right.  Rand probably would've spoken against this bill if he was planning on voting "no."

----------


## supermario21

I don't see this vote being a big deal, though I wish he'd vote no just because listening to these people talk about how evil Iran is and how they threaten to attack us is just ridiculous.

----------


## Brett85

Graham said that it's going to be a unanimous vote.  I'm afraid he's probably right.

----------


## supermario21

He just voted yes.

----------


## Brett85

Damn it.  That's just going to lose him a lot more support.

----------


## Warlord

> Damn it.  That's just going to lose him a lot more support.


These resolutions are meaningless.

----------


## supermario21

I still think the Syria vote was more important than this. This is pretty much a meaningless resolution for show.

----------


## Brett85

> I still think the Syria vote was more important than this. This is pretty much a meaningless resolution for show.


I don't.  Preemptive war with Iran costs a lot more than giving weapons to the Syrian rebels.

----------


## Spoa

I'm more moderate on these types of issues than most here. I understand people's concerns about sanctions, but I am not against them because while some will argue that it could lead to war, I argue that sanctions are not equivalent to war.

We passed several sanctions last year...are we at war with any of these countries we passed against them yet? If this were a vote on going to war, I would be against it...period.

Now, let's fight against sending arms to Syria.

----------


## supermario21

The way I see it though is Rand made something that would ordinarily pass 99-1 slightly less terrible and pass 100-0.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm more moderate on these types of issues than most here. I understand people's concerns about sanctions, but I am not against them because while some will argue that it could lead to war, I argue that sanctions are not equivalent to war.
> 
> We passed several sanctions last year...are we at war with any of these countries we passed against them yet? If this were a vote on going to war, I would be against it...period.
> 
> Now, let's fight against sending arms to Syria.


This isn't simply a sanctions bill.  It's a bill that promises that our government will help Israel carry out a preemptive war or preemptive attack against Iran.

----------


## Spoa

> I don't.  Preemptive war with Iran costs a lot more than giving weapons to the Syrian rebels.


What do you mean by preemptive war? The resolution is simply a bunch of encouraging and nice fluffy words that don't mean anything. It isn't law, it is just a sense of the senate.

----------


## trey4sports

yuck...

----------


## Warlord

> I don't.  Preemptive war with Iran costs a lot more than giving weapons to the Syrian rebels.


The resolution doesn't authorize any sort of preemptive war and has all kind of hurdles in it.

Completely meaningless and not that bad.

----------


## tsai3904

> This isn't simply a sanctions bill.  It's a bill that promises that our government will help Israel carry out a preemptive war or preemptive attack against Iran.


It's a sense of the Congress that the US will VOTE on supporting Israel if needed.  Rand demanded that any action require a vote of Congress, which prior resolutions lacked.

I still wouldn't have voted for the resolution though.

----------


## Warlord

> This isn't simply a sanctions bill.  It's a bill that promises that our government will help Israel carry out a preemptive war or preemptive attack against Iran.


It's not a bill and it has language that says "in accordance with the US constitution"... so it's basically meaningless because if you logically followed it then Congress would have to authorize anything.

----------


## trey4sports

> It's not a bill and it has language that says *"in accordance with the US constitution"*... so it's basically meaningless because if you logically followed it then Congress would have to authorize anything.



Yes, and we know how much our dear leaders respect the Constitution...

----------


## supermario21

> Yes, and we know how much our dear leaders respect the Constitution...


At which point Rand would vote no. There's nothing he can do to stop any of this anyways.

----------


## Warlord

The generals the other day were claiming in the Armed Services Committee they could wage war at any point, anywhere in the world using the AUMF and Graham loved it.

Thing that surprised me was Angus King (I-Maine). He went crazy at the generals saying "this is unacceptable!"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Damn it.  That's just going to lose him a lot more support.


He lost mine, if he really did vote yes.  Screw this game...

----------


## Warlord

> He lost mine, if he really did vote yes.  Screw this game...


That's not a surprise because you're an agent sent here to spread discontent.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't.  Preemptive war with Iran costs a lot more than giving weapons to the Syrian rebels.


Yep.  And worse, it murders more innocents.  Rand should be ashamed of himself for morally condoning murder.  He's NOT getting my vote after this.




> I'm more moderate on these types of issues than most here. I understand people's concerns about sanctions, but I am not against them because while some will argue that it could lead to war, I argue that sanctions are not equivalent to war.
> 
> We passed several sanctions last year...are we at war with any of these countries we passed against them yet? If this were a vote on going to war, I would be against it...period.
> 
> Now, let's fight against sending arms to Syria.


I don't like the sanctions, but that's not my issue here.  Rand just voted for preemptive war.  It may not be happening now, but he just voted in favor of it.




> The way I see it though is Rand made something that would ordinarily pass 99-1 slightly less terrible and pass 100-0.


I don't care.  He voted to condone murder.  I'm not going to just accept that.  Rand lost my vote.



> This isn't simply a sanctions bill.  It's a bill that promises that our government will help Israel carry out a preemptive war or preemptive attack against Iran.


Exactly. Which is why Rand lost my vote.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's not a surprise because you're an agent sent here to spread discontent.


itshappening...

----------


## Warlord

If he's lost your vote and support leave the forum and never come back.

Please, please?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If he's lost your vote and support leave the forum and never come back.
> 
> Please, please?


Its RONPaulforums you moron...

----------


## Warlord

Leave Rand's subforum then.

Why bother posting in it if he's lost your support (if only to carry out your mission to spread discontent and undermine his support?)

----------


## Christian Liberty

Rand doesn't deserve anyone's support after this.  The District of Criminals has obviously corrupted him too...

That said, I'm not going to stick around this subforum.  I wish Rand all the best and I only hope he's really better than he's showing us right now.   This vote was unacceptable and gave moral support to murder.  If we HAVEN'T bombed Iran by 2016, come talk to me.  Until then... Rand will have the blood of innocents on his hands like everyone else in the senate.

I just can't ethically support voting for someone who supports this kind of crap...

----------


## supermario21

This wasn't a vote to bomb anyone. This was a vote where a few pompous Senators patted themselves on the back for "being tough on Iran." This does nothing. I don't understand why some think this is such a big deal. The only reason that any of this stuff has been considered an act of war in the past is that many of the people writing and supporting these resolutions end up starting a war. This resolution doesn't authorize any of that, and because of Rand, the Senate would have to come back and authorize force if it wanted to.

----------


## Warlord

> Rand doesn't deserve anyone's support after this.  The District of Criminals has obviously corrupted him too...
> 
> That said, I'm not going to stick around this subforum.  I wish Rand all the best and I only hope he's really better than he's showing us right now.   This vote was unacceptable and gave moral support to murder.  If we HAVEN'T bombed Iran by 2016, come talk to me.  Until then... Rand will have the blood of innocents on his hands like everyone else in the senate.
> 
> I just can't ethically support voting for someone who supports this kind of crap...


Great! You're going to stay out of the sub-forum then?

----------


## JCDenton0451

I can't believe I'm saying this, but it looks like we'll have to rely on President Obama to stop this madness.

Those of you who voted for Romney last November, think about this: 

Barack Obama is the only man who can prevent Iran war now.

----------


## Warlord

> I can't believe I'm saying this, but it looks like we'll have to rely on President Obama to stop this madness.
> 
> Those of you who voted for Romney last November, think about this: 
> 
> Barack Obama is the only man who can prevent Iran war now.


I doubt there will be any war with Iran after Iraq/Afghanistan. Even the establishment aren't that dumb.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I doubt there will be any war with Iran after Iraq/Afghanistan. Even the establishment aren't that dumb.


President Romney would go for it. He would totally go for it.

----------


## supermario21

President Santorum would have started one on his inaguration day.

----------


## Brett85

> I can't believe I'm saying this, but it looks like we'll have to rely on President Obama to stop this madness.
> 
> Those of you who voted for Romney last November, think about this: 
> 
> Barack Obama is the only man who can prevent Iran war now.


Yeah, at this point Obama might actually be less hawkish on Iran than Rand is.  Obama has been resisting most of the sanctions.

----------


## Warlord

> President Romney would go for it. He would totally go for it.


No he wouldn't because the military would have said "forget it sir".  

They dont want a war with Iran and the public will not support it.

----------


## klamath

> Rand doesn't deserve anyone's support after this.  The District of Criminals has obviously corrupted him too...
> 
> That said, I'm not going to stick around this subforum.  I wish Rand all the best and I only hope he's really better than he's showing us right now.   This vote was unacceptable and gave moral support to murder.  If we HAVEN'T bombed Iran by 2016, come talk to me.  Until then... Rand will have the blood of innocents on his hands like everyone else in the senate.
> 
> I just can't ethically support voting for someone who supports this kind of crap...


 You lost me in believing you are really antiwar when you said you looked forward to civil war.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I can't believe I'm saying this, but it looks like we'll have to rely on President Obama to stop this madness.
> 
> Those of you who voted for Romney last November, think about this: 
> 
> Barack Obama is the only man who can prevent Iran war now.



That's one reason I was rooting (If you can call it that) for Obama.  the GOP fiasco where they ripped the REAL hero of the Paul family (That's RON for any of you who got too close to the establishment) was the other.




> President Santorum would have started one on his inaguration day.


He would.  Just wondering, if it was SANTORUM against Obama would you still have voted major party?  Not trying to judge you for that, I know you changed your mind and "Lesser of bad options" votes don't matter anyway, I'm just curious.



> Yeah, at this point Obama might actually be less hawkish on Iran than Rand is.  Obama has been resisting most of the sanctions.


Do you see why I can't vote for Rand?

Anyone and everyone is welcome to PM me a good reason why I should, or post it here.  I can't think of one.  He's a traitor to the ideals of his father.

And yes, my tone did basically change from basically supporting Rand to "Hating him" in less than 24 hours.  I've got no tolerance for supporters of murder.  And if Rand Paul doesn't really believe this crap, that's no excuse.  What you do matters.

So much for all of Rand's votes  being good...

----------


## Warlord

Why are you still posting in his sub-forum?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You lost me in believing you are really antiwar when you said you looked forward to civil war.


I don't remember saying that, but frankly, I'd rather see someone actually fight for our freedoms and against the thugs in Washington than see all of this crap.  I don't think you can win this game peacefully.  I support the right of any state to secede and I support the right of the states to execute any Federal agents who try to take away our rights.  That's self-defense.  Every libertarian should know the difference between self-defense and murder.  I don't subscribe to pacifism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why are you still posting in his sub-forum?


Because I freaking can, and I want to see what kind of laughable defense the Randroids can dream up.

----------


## brandon

The resolution really isnt that bad. Mostly meaningl3ss

----------


## Brett85

> I've got no tolerance for supporters of murder.


I think Rand could actually commit murder and some people here would still find a way to justify his actions.

----------


## Brett85

> Why are you still posting in his sub-forum?


Are you a moderator?

----------


## Warlord

> Because I freaking can, and I want to see what kind of laughable defense the Randroids can dream up.


So you're just going to keep posting your bile and calling us names in here even though you don't support Rand and have no interest in him?

----------


## Brett85

I love it when certain people try to play "Forum Police," especially certain people like "Itshappening" who's already been banned from this forum once.

----------


## Warlord

I just want to know why he's planning on posting in the sub-forum if he doesn't support Rand and if it's his intention to ruin every thread. 

If so I can safely add him to the ignore list.

----------


## devil21

So what is the practical impact of this resolution?  Nothing.  I've learned that resolutions don't have any force of law or required action behind them, rather are just for show.  Part of playing the political game is not giving your enemies ammo to use against you, particularly in the form of votes on resolutions that have no force of law.  

I think much of the complaining about Rand lately centers on the fact that this movement is starting to separate into the purist, but generally politically unsavvy, and those that are taking a more pragmatic approach, as effective political strategy demands.  Sure, back in 2009 I probably would have freaked out if Ron had voted in favor of a resolution like this.  Difference is that I understand much, much better how to play the political strategy game than I did back then.

Im feeling like there are genuine liberty folks (cajun for example) that want to stick with purism participating in these threads and that's fine.  This isn't a groupthink exercise.  There's also trolls coming in to take advantage of this dissension and they're pretty easy to pick out.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think Rand could actually commit murder and some people here would still find a way to justify his actions.


Didn't he just already vote for it?

You seem reasonable and level-headed here.  What do you make of this?  Am I doing the wrong thing?  I am open to being convinced if you feel the desire to try.

You know what, I've said before as a joke that Obama could flat out shoot someone and a third of the senate would still vote to acquit.  But the thing is, he's already killed thousands with drones.  With this vote, Rand Paul has morally condoned the murder of thousands.  I don't care if its "Non-binding", if someone was asked if they believed murder was acceptable and they said yes, they wouldn't get my support.

At least the pro-choicers hold their position on a (Albeit misguided) desire to get the government out of a given issue.  Rand voted for state-sanctioned murder.  And his dad is RON PAUL.  He knows better.  And I have no doubt Walter Block's Nuremberg Trial would convict him to.

I don't see why I should forgive Rand for this one unless he flat out does a 180 like Ron did on the Afghanistan AUMF (Which was MUCH more understandable than this one, Ron had MUCH less information at the time, and what he actually wanted to do was not unjustified albeit a bit pragmatically questionable.)





> So you're just going to keep posting your bile and calling us names in here even though you don't support Rand and have no interest in him?


I'm involved in this thread already.  I'll probably back out in a couple days.  I don't intend to harp on this until 2016.  But I genuinely feel betrayed and angry right now.  Thanks a lot Rand..




> I love it when certain people try to play "Forum Police," especially certain people like "Itshappening" who's already been banned from this forum once.


LOL!  +1.

----------


## Aratus

the gov't in syria is about to fall, a poor humble soldier in civilian apparel just got beheaded in london.
the warhawks want a war with iran sooooooooooooooooooo bad it isn't funny. nothing is coincidental.

----------


## devil21

> Didn't he just already vote for it?
> 
> You seem reasonable and level-headed here.  What do you make of this?  Am I doing the wrong thing?  I am open to being convinced if you feel the desire to try.
> 
> You know what, I've said before as a joke that Obama could flat out shoot someone and a third of the senate would still vote to acquit.  But the thing is, he's already killed thousands with drones.  With this vote, Rand Paul has morally condoned the murder of thousands.  I don't care if its "Non-binding", if someone was asked if they believed murder was acceptable and they said yes, they wouldn't get my support.
> 
> At least the pro-choicers hold their position on a (Albeit misguided) desire to get the government out of a given issue.  Rand voted for state-sanctioned murder.  And his dad is RON PAUL.  He knows better.  And I have no doubt Walter Block's Nuremberg Trial would convict him to.
> 
> I don't see why I should forgive Rand for this one unless he flat out does a 180 like Ron did on the Afghanistan AUMF (Which was MUCH more understandable than this one, Ron had MUCH less information at the time, and what he actually wanted to do was not unjustified albeit a bit pragmatically questionable.)
> ...


So you're mad that he voted for a resolution that has no force of law, no action required, no spending, and was specifically amended by the guy you're mad at to require Congressional approval before any future action is taken in the spirit of this resolution?  I don't like playing nice with special interests either (particularly AIPAC and their ilk) but this isn't a battle to fight right now, not over a resolution with no impact on anything.  Resolutions are for show, nothing more.  On the other hand, vote against the resolution and keep the purists happy (who make up a voting percentage smaller than an ant's penis) but watch the zionists tear Rand apart for being "fringe" and "out of step" and "isolationist" in their wide-influence media networks.  Basically what you're suggesting is that Rand give the same smear machine that smeared Ron the same ammo to smear him in the exact same way.  No thanks.  I want to play to win this time.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So you're mad that he voted for a resolution that has no force of law, no action required, no spending, and was specifically amended by the guy you're mad at to require Congressional approval before any future action is taken in the spirit of this resolution?  I don't like playing nice with special interests either (particularly AIPAC and their ilk) but this isn't a battle to fight right now.  Resolutions are for show, nothing more.  On the other hand, vote against the resolution and keep the purists happy but watch the zionists tear Rand apart for being "fringe" and "out of step" and "isolationist" in their wide-influence media networks.  Basically what you're suggesting is that Rand give the same smear machine that smeared Ron the same ammo to smear him in the exact same way.  No thanks.  I want to play to win this time.


The only way to win is not to play.  The zionists can go to Hell, Rand should do what is right because its right.  But he won't because he's falling into the establishment trap.  Principles matter. Do what's right because its RIGHT!

----------


## devil21

> The only way to win is not to play.  The zionists can go to Hell, Rand should do what is right because its right.  But he won't because he's falling into the establishment trap.  Principles matter. Do what's right because its RIGHT!


What is the definition of insanity according to Einstein?

Picking the battles is a wise move.  Being a thorn just to be a thorn is not.

Btw, comparing the Afghan AUMF to this resolution is absurd.  They are apples and oranges different, legislatively speaking.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I care about ethics and standing up for what's right, not games.  I guess I just can't support playing the game this way.  Its just morally wrong...

----------


## Brett85

> What is the definition of insanity according to Einstein?
> 
> Picking the battles is a wise move.  Being a thorn just to be a thorn is not.


Rand voted against the last Iran resolution about a year ago.  The vote was 99-1.  Was he just "being a thorn in the side" and not "picking his battles wisely" with that vote?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rand voted against the last Iran resolution.  The vote was 99-1.  Was he just "being a thorn in the side" and not "picking his battles wisely" with that vote?


To me this just shows DC is getting to him...

----------


## Brett85

> Didn't he just already vote for it?
> 
> You seem reasonable and level-headed here.  What do you make of this?  Am I doing the wrong thing?  I am open to being convinced if you feel the desire to try.


I personally think that if Rand loses people like you with votes like this, he has only himself to blame.  You certainly shouldn't receive any blame or criticism for what you're saying.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I personally think that if Rand loses people like you with votes like this, he has only himself to blame.  You certainly shouldn't receive any blame or criticism for what you're saying.


Out of curiosity, where do you stand right now?

Its tough for me but between this, the drone comment, the "We shouldn't legalize drugs", the whole thing about "Striking a balance"... well, I got excited for a little while because of the filibuster but I think DC got to him.  I really don't think he's the same person he was in the 90's.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul is unsure of his true intentions either.  He's a politician, we should deal with him as such.

----------


## devil21

^^^^^^^
Oh yes please, wise and learned one, please tell us how to "deal" with the son of Ron Paul.  Surely your 18 years on the planet have given you all the wisdom you need to tell us how to "deal" with him.

:eyeroll

----------


## Christian Liberty

And to the absolute Rand-defenders (TC: I'm not talking to you, whether you still support Rand or not, you've criticized him plenty of times including here) Whatever happened to the whole "Speak like a neocon, vote like a liberty candidate" argument?  Looks like Rand speaks AND votes like a neocon...  And your defense now is "It doesn't matter"?

Tell me how that's not freaking pathetic.

----------


## Brett85

> Out of curiosity, where do you stand right now?
> 
> Its tough for me but between this, the drone comment, the "We shouldn't legalize drugs", the whole thing about "Striking a balance"... well, I got excited for a little while because of the filibuster but I think DC got to him.  I really don't think he's the same person he was in the 90's.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Ron Paul is unsure of his true intentions either.  He's a politician, we should deal with him as such.


I'm not sure.  I'll probably look at his record in its totality.  I wish we could find someone better than Rand to run for President who can actually win, but unfortunately we don't seem to have any better options at the moment.  I think that Amash is too young to run, and I don't see who else could really run who could stop Rubio and actually win.  But, it just seems to me like votes like this will simply dampen all of the enthusiasm for Rand's campaign and hurt his fundraising.  I just really don't understand why he thinks it will help him politically to basically be "Rubio-lite" on foreign policy issues.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> ^^^^^^^
> Oh yes please, wise and learned one, please tell us how to "deal" with the son of Ron Paul.  Surely your 18 years on the planet have given you all the wisdom you need to tell us how to "deal" with him.
> 
> :eyeroll


Don't drag Ron into this.  He may be being generous to his son but he's a true supporter of liberty.  Walter Block has talked to Ron Paul before about Rand not being a libertarian and Ron Paul was apparently embarassed that Block brought it up in the context it was brought up in, but he could not disagree.  Ron Paul knows better, but he doesn't want to hurt his son.  What am I going to complain about?  That Ron Paul is too nice to his own family?  Oh please.  Leave the real champion of liberty out of this and let's talk about the traitor...

----------


## Brett85

> The resolution really isnt that bad. Mostly meaningl3ss


My how far we've come since Ron ran for President in 2012.  And certainly not in a good way.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm not sure.  I'll probably look at his record in its totality.  I wish we could find someone better than Rand to run for President who can actually win, but unfortunately we don't seem to have any better options at the moment.  I think that Amash is too young to run, and I don't see who else could really run who could stop Rubio and actually win.  But, it just seems to me like votes like this will simply dampen all of the enthusiasm for Rand's campaign and hurt his fundraising.  I just really don't understand why he thinks it will help him politically to basically be "Rubio-lite" on foreign policy issues.


Fair enough.  We all have our sliding scales.  I'm personally choosing to apply Romans 3:8 in this context.  I can't do evil so good may come of it.  While I certainly think Rand Paul would be less  horrible than Rubio, that's all I can really say now.  I think Rand will get even worse if he actually gets to a general election.  The average voter is "moderate", aka statist, not libertarian leaning.  I think there's still more education to be done before we can get anyone we can really trust.  I don't expect perfection but I'm not going to vote for somebody who supports war and murder.  At this point I think I was probably wrong to ever support (Though I didn't vote for him, I couldn't have) Gary Johnson as well.  If all the candidates suck in '16, I'll proudly write in Laurence Vance as the ultimate middle finger to the neoconservatives and those who just can't seem to fight against them (Rand, I'm looking STRAIGHT at you there.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My how far we've come since Ron ran for President in 2012.  And certainly not in a good way.


I wish Ron would run again in 2016.  I don't really expect him to do that at 81, but heaven  knows we need someone with real principle.

Did this vote go to the House yet?  Does it ever?  Will Amash and Massie vote against it?  Have they already?

----------


## Brett85

> Did this vote go to the House yet?  Does it ever?  Will Amash and Massie vote against it?  Have they already?


The house hasn't voted on it, and I don't know when or if they will.  But I can guarantee you that both Amash and Massie will vote against it.

----------


## Rocco

Probably the single greatest post in forum history. 




> If he's lost your vote and support leave the forum and never come back.
> 
> Please, please?

----------


## devil21

> Don't drag Ron into this.  He may be being generous to his son but he's a true supporter of liberty.  Walter Block has talked to Ron Paul before about Rand not being a libertarian and Ron Paul was apparently embarassed that Block brought it up in the context it was brought up in, but he could not disagree.  Ron Paul knows better, but he doesn't want to hurt his son.  What am I going to complain about?  That Ron Paul is too nice to his own family?  Oh please.  Leave the real champion of liberty out of this and let's talk about the traitor...


Im convinced you're just a troll sowing division.  Thanks for the neg rep schooling me on Ron, btw.  Definitely, thanks for your help there...Im new here.

Now, back to $#@!ing reality....

Ron Paul:  Rand and I Are About 99%.  People Try to Drive Wedges Between Rand and Me







> "We do have some differences and *our approaches will be different*, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues]."

----------


## Brett85

> Probably the single greatest post in forum history.


Lol.  Some people will just defend Rand no matter what he does.  I still haven't said that I won't support him in 2016, but his vote today was absolutely horrendous and should be condemned by everyone who has any principles at all.  It was as bad as it gets.

----------


## cero

> Don't drag Ron into this.  He may be being generous to his son but he's a true supporter of liberty.  Walter Block has talked to Ron Paul before about Rand not being a libertarian and Ron Paul was apparently embarassed that Block brought it up in the context it was brought up in, but he could not disagree.  Ron Paul knows better, but he doesn't want to hurt his son.  What am I going to complain about?  That Ron Paul is too nice to his own family?  Oh please.  Leave the real champion of liberty out of this and let's talk about the traitor...


please get out I bet you would have also flipped your $#@! when Ron voted not to condemn Israel for destroying Iraqs nuclear reactors.


rand was the only one to vote against preemptive war with Iran, and believes containment is the best method for dealing with Iran he has made this very clear, so is obvious he does not see a strike on Irans nuclear reactors as a legitimate form of self defense from the Israelis, again he said so him self in the speech where he voted 99-1 against preemptive war with Iran  http://youtu.be/mFip8TclifU?t=8m11s that even if they one day get a nuke, we would not declare war on them and instead contain them, this however doesn't mean that he is against Israel taking action into their own hands, and just like how Ron voted NOT to condemn Israel for attacking Iraq's nuclear reactors in 1981, should Israel do the same this time around with Iran, is pretty clear  Rand will stand with them just like Ron, but if war breaks out, will he send troops to support israel? what if Israel is on the verge of getting invaded will he then support sending troops?
I don't think so, again, I'm basing this on his voting record.

also this clause is very important:
(8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

----------


## Brett85

> this however doesn't mean that he is against Israel taking action into their own hands, and just like how Ron voted NOT to condemn Israel for attacking Iraq's nuclear reactors in 1981, should Israel do the same this time around with Iran, is pretty clear  Rand will stand with them just like Ron.


If this resolution simply said that Israel has the right to use military action against Iran if they feel it's in their national security interests, I wouldn't have any problem with it.  The problem with the resolution (other than the support for sanctions) is that it promises military aid to Israel in the event that they strike Iran's nuclear facilities.  It's not simply a resolution that says, "Israel is a sovereign nation and can do what they feel is in their best national security interests."  I would have no problem with a resolution like that.

----------


## devil21

Might be time to bring back my troll signature and start calling out the posters who only seek to drive those wedges that Ron mentioned.  A couple posters on this thread would obviously be a good start to the list.

----------


## Warlord

> Lol.  Some people will just defend Rand no matter what he does.  I still haven't said that I won't support him in 2016, but his vote today was absolutely horrendous and should be condemned by everyone who has any principles at all.  It was as bad as it gets.


Wow you're really making so much of this aren't you?

This vote was not by any measure "horendous" it's a non-binding resolution for gods sake. They pass these every week and have done for years. I told you yesterday exactly how it would go.  GET OVER IT.

----------


## tsai3904

> If this resolution simply said that Israel has the right to use military action against Iran if they feel it's in their national security interests, I wouldn't have any problem with it.  The problem with the resolution (other than the support for sanctions) is that it promises military aid to Israel in the event that they strike Iran's nuclear facilities.  It's not simply a resolution that says, "Israel is a sovereign nation and can do what they feel is in their best national security interests."  I would have no problem with a resolution like that.


As written in the resolution (not what you think will or will not happen), is that support of military aid dependent on Congress voting to authorize force?

----------


## Rocco

You know what's freaking pathetic? People who have no perspective on the history or current makeup of the GOP whatsoever trying to label somebody a neocon who is making all the right moves in bringing more people into our movement. To say that Rand Paul is voting like a neocon shows such a severe lack of knowledge of what a neocon actually is and what the neocons actually support. Do you know the history of the neocons? Google Irving Kristol. Bush, McCain, Lindsey Graham, those are neocons. Ted Cruz is not a neocon, Rand Paul is not a neocon, even non liberty people like Michele Bachmann are not neocons. Rand had the language changed specifically so it was NOT a neoconservative piece of legislation. In return for that, he gave his vote. When you come on here and stir $#@! up when Rand isn't a Murray Rothbard clone you could at least not call him things which he is clearly not. 




> And to the absolute Rand-defenders (TC: I'm not talking to you, whether you still support Rand or not, you've criticized him plenty of times including here) Whatever happened to the whole "Speak like a neocon, vote like a liberty candidate" argument?  Looks like Rand speaks AND votes like a neocon...  And your defense now is "It doesn't matter"?
> 
> Tell me how that's not freaking pathetic.

----------


## Warlord

They're both trolls sent here to undermine his support.  I'm sure of it.

----------


## devil21

> Rand voted against the last Iran resolution about a year ago.  The vote was 99-1.  Was he just "being a thorn in the side" and not "picking his battles wisely" with that vote?


Post the contents of that resolution.  Was there a requirement for Congressional approval before any action?  What was this resolution exactly?  link please

----------


## DylanWaco

He should have voted present

----------


## Warlord

Yes devil, the guy who's apparently 18 years old (FF) and joined in 2013 is schooling you on Ron Paul.

It's amazing isnt it?

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> Post the contents of that resolution.  Was there a requirement for Congressional approval before any action?  What was this resolution exactly?  link please


Honestly, does no one here look up things for themselves?

http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/05/15/aipac/




> The resolution was written by AIPAC and introduced in both Houses by the AIPAC faithful. It would have passed the Senate 99-1 except that the one, Rand Paul, used the unanimous consent rule to keep it off the floor. Not to worry, Senators Reid and McConnell will make sure it passes later.

----------


## Brett85

> They're both trolls sent here to undermine his support.  I'm sure of it.


Yep, anyone who supports Ron's foreign policy is a "troll."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Post the contents of that resolution.  Was there a requirement for Congressional approval before any action?  What was this resolution exactly?  link please


How about you read the OP?




> Yes devil, the guy who's apparently 18 years old (FF) and joined in 2013 is schooling you on Ron Paul.
> 
> It's amazing isnt it?


There's this device that gives you the ability to learn things you never saw at the click of button.  I think its called "The Internet."

----------


## Brett85

> Honestly, does no one here look up things for themselves?
> 
> http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/05/15/aipac/


Yep.  And this resolution was 10 times worse than the one Rand voted against.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yep, anyone who supports Ron's foreign policy is a "troll."


Apparently...  I guess in Rand Paul's forum you can't express dislike for betrayal of Ron Paul's principles.  


I won't be voting for Rand. Through his own stupidity he lost mine.  of course, some here will blame me instead of their savior, but that's on them.

----------


## Warlord

> How about you read the OP?
> 
> 
> There's this device that gives you the ability to learn things you never saw at the click of button.  I think its called "The Internet."


And you're an expert on Ron Paul despite being 18 years old and a member of this form for 2 months and lecturing devil who's been here since 2007 and probably knows more than you forgot?

Obvious troll.

----------


## cero

> Yep.  And this resolution was 10 times worse than the one Rand voted against.


how the hell preemptive war not worse?
dude please go...

----------


## Brett85

> And you're an expert on Ron Paul despite being 18 years old and a member of this form for 2 months and lecturing devil who's been here since 2007 and probably knows more than you forgot?
> 
> Obvious troll.


And the guy called "Itshappening" who's already been banned from this forum for inappropriate conduct isn't a "troll?"

----------


## supermario21

I know FF asked awhile ago, but no, I wouldn't have voted for Santorum. I would have written in Ron Paul.

----------


## Brett85

> how the hell preemptive war not worse?
> dude please go...


A vote for this resolution is a vote for preemptive war.  The other resolution was far less explicit in its support for preemptive war.

----------


## Warlord

> Yep, anyone who supports Ron's foreign policy is a "troll."


No but anyone who posts and whines incessantly over a non-binding resolution i.e exactly what you're doing  is obviously trolling.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And the guy called "Itshappening" who's already been banned from this forum for inappropriate conduct isn't a "troll?"


He can't really call himself a troll, can he?

If an actual mod asks me to do  something, I'll listen.  Until then, the Randroids will need to learn to defend their Dear Leader.

----------


## cero

> You and devil are both sellouts who hate principle as shown by your hatred for the principled.


dude take this over dramatic bull$#@! back to the daily paul

----------


## Warlord

> You and devil are both sellouts who hate principle as shown by your hatred for the principled.


I've been a principled libertarian longer than you've been alive (if you're telling the truth about your age) so how have I "sold out".

You're the sellout because your trolling to undermine one of the most principled members of congress.

----------


## cero

> He can't really call himself a troll, can he?
> 
> If an actual mod asks me to do  something, I'll listen.  Until then, the Randroids will need to learn to defend their Dear Leader.



broh please answer how is this resolution worse than the one rand voted against 99 to 1

----------


## Brett85

> He can't really call himself a troll, can he?


Well, I would say that a "troll" is someone who has already been banned from this forum and came back to post under a different user name.

----------


## DylanWaco

Setting aside the trolling and counter trolling and setting aside my own views on Rand, can someone give me a good reason for Rand voting for this resolution when A. He had just spoken out against foreign policy consensus in a meaningful way the day before B. He had been the lone vote against a previous resolution with similarly dangerous language and C. He could have easily not voted up or down?  What is the argument for voting for the resolution?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I know FF asked awhile ago, but no, I wouldn't have voted for Santorum. I would have written in Ron Paul.


OK, cool, thanks

Out of respect for Ron Paul's desire to support his son, I would make sure NOT to write him in if Rand is on the ballot.  I respect him that much.  




> A vote for this resolution is a vote for preemptive war.  The other resolution was far less explicit in its support for preemptive war.


This one's pretty darn explicit.  Its "Non binding" but if there was a bill that said it was morally acceptable to kill children but was "non-binding" would you let that slide?  Because that's literally what this bill is.

Has OBAMA even supported this yet?

----------


## cero

> Setting aside the trolling and counter trolling and setting aside my own views on Rand, can someone give me a good reason for Rand voting for this resolution when A. He had just spoken out against foreign policy consensus in a meaningful way the day before B. He had been the lone vote against a previous resolution with similarly dangerous language and C. He could have easily not voted up or down?  What is the argument for voting for the resolution?


so 3 years for now people won't paint him as antisemitic as they did with Ron

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, I would say that a "troll" is someone who has already been banned from this forum and came back to post under a different user name.


Well,  yes, so would I.  But he's not going to admit to his own identity.

Would any Pakistani really know this much about US politics?

Then again, Warlord's style does seem a LITTLE different.



> broh please answer how is this resolution worse than the one rand voted against 99 to 1


Well, TradCon made that statement.  While he's a reasonable person that doesn't blindly worship Rand, which means I'd tend to trust what he says on this issue, he made the statement.  So I'll let him explain it to you.

----------


## Warlord

> Setting aside the trolling and counter trolling and setting aside my own views on Rand, can someone give me a good reason for Rand voting for this resolution when A. He had just spoken out against foreign policy consensus in a meaningful way the day before B. He had been the lone vote against a previous resolution with similarly dangerous language and C. He could have easily not voted up or down?  What is the argument for voting for the resolution?


The resolution is meaningless. It contains language that requires further congressional action before anything else happens if it was to logically follow.  Warlord has seen a lot of these resolutions and this is by far the least objectionable.

----------


## cero

> A vote for this resolution is a vote for preemptive war.  The other resolution was far less explicit in its support for preemptive war.


how the hell is this resolution a vote for preemptive war, where the hell are you getting this?
point it out to me please

----------


## Brett85

> so 3 years for now people won't paint him as antisemitic as they did with Ron


They'll do that anyway.  This vote won't change a thing.  The warmongers in the GOP will still vote for Rubio and Santorum.  This vote did nothing to help Rand get their votes.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> so 3 years for now people won't paint him as antisemitic as they did with Ron


They still will.  That Jewish Republican group has already done that to Rand.  You know what?  Just ask them to google Walter Block, that SHOULD shut them up...

But why should we care about these idiots?  They won' let us win no matter how we appease them.

----------


## Warlord

TC/FF are you both just going to whine and whine and whine until you fall asleep?

What's the point?

----------


## supermario21

> Don't drag Ron into this.  He may be being generous to his son but he's a true supporter of liberty.  Walter Block has talked to Ron Paul before about Rand not being a libertarian and Ron Paul was apparently embarassed that Block brought it up in the context it was brought up in, but he could not disagree.  Ron Paul knows better, but he doesn't want to hurt his son.  What am I going to complain about?  That Ron Paul is too nice to his own family?  Oh please.  Leave the real champion of liberty out of this and let's talk about the traitor...


Yeah, and there's a reason why Rand and Ron get cheered wherever they go yet Walter Block was getting booed off the stage at a libertarian rally!!

----------


## cero

> Well, TradCon made that statement.  While he's a reasonable person that doesn't blindly worship Rand, which means I'd tend to trust what he says on this issue, he made the statement.  So I'll let him explain it to you.


please take a shot at it.
I wana hear your point of view

----------


## Christian Liberty

> They'll do that anyway.  This vote won't change a thing.  The warmongers in the GOP will still vote for Rubio and Santorum.  This vote did nothing to help Rand get their votes.


Exactly.  But they're going to lose people like me.  Congratulations Rand! /sarc.

----------


## klamath

> I don't remember saying that, but frankly, I'd rather see someone actually fight for our freedoms and against the thugs in Washington than see all of this crap.  I don't think you can win this game peacefully.  I support the right of any state to secede and I support the right of the states to execute any Federal agents who try to take away our rights.  That's self-defense.  Every libertarian should know the difference between self-defense and murder.  I don't subscribe to pacifism.


Right You haven't got a clue what a war is kid. "Actually fight for our FREEDOMS!!!!!" God have I heard that one before. Maybe you oaught to join the military and you can hear that stupid line every day to your hearts content. I am sure you will love the lines at the airports with the people shaking your hand and women hugging you thanking you for "fighting for our freedoms!"  I don't like this vote of Rands but you lost all credibility with your principals. If you believe in a civil war you are about 5000 points below Rand as far as prolife. 




> About me: 18 years old, Christian, Baptist, Libertarian, minarchist, strict constructionist, anti-federalist, *anti-war*NOT!, anti-prohibition, pro-nullification, pro-gun, pro-Bill of Rights, *pro-peace*NOT!, pro-freedom.

----------


## DylanWaco

> so 3 years for now people won't paint him as antisemitic as they did with Ron


Two problems with this....

1. It almost certainly won't work because the people who do that painting use a brush big enough that anything less than slavish devotion to Israel means you are a devotee of Hitler.

2. He already casts a lone vote against a resolution you are claiming was even more dangerous and written by AIPAC and has come out hard against the Israeli hardline Likud position on Syria.

----------


## Warlord

> Exactly.  But they're going to lose people like me.  Congratulations Rand! /sarc.



I'm pretty sure losing a "supporter" like you would be a massive boost to his campaign.

----------


## Brett85

> how the hell is this resolution a vote for preemptive war, where the hell are you getting this?
> point it out to me please


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c113DRdvt6::

urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense *against Iran's nuclear weapons program.*

----------


## TaftFan

I have said before I support preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, however I disagree with sanctions as a strategy as it hurts the people and doesn't remove the regime. My preferred strategy is sabotage(if not viable, bomb the hell out of that mountain). I don't want Iran's economy to collapse, or another Middle Eastern ground war to deal with. I also don't want any more nuclear weapons in such a crazy region. Yes my position violates libertarian principles however utilitarianism is higher on my human morality scale in this case. (If I was true to pure libertarian principles, I would also be an anarchist, but I am not). 

In any case, I think it is more appropriate for Israel to take my suggested action.

----------


## DylanWaco

> The resolution is meaningless. It contains language that requires further congressional action before anything else happens if it was to logically follow.  Warlord has seen a lot of these resolutions and this is by far the least objectionable.


Even if we assume that the resolution is meaningless because it's non-binding (which is highly questionable given the propaganda value and consensus building tools bills like this are often used for) that's hardly a reason to vote for it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, and there's a reason why Rand and Ron get cheered wherever they go yet Walter Block was getting booed off the stage at a libertarian rally!!


If I recall correctly, Block got booed because he had promised to talk about one of his books but went off on evictionism instead.  If that's the case you're talking about, he also recognized his mistake and apologized.

I'm not really from the same wing of Libertarianism as Block is, for the record.  I admire his consistency, but I can't stomach the Rothbardian views on family and children's rights.  I haven't been convinced of anarcho-capitalism eventually, but I *could be. * I could never be convinced that spanking a child should be a crime but that depriving a child of food is not, yet that's the logical conclusion of the Rothbard/Block position.  I also would never "Allow" a ten year old to run away from home.  So to be clear, simply by mentioning him does not mean I agree with everything he says.

Nobody's perfect, but if I had to pick one person that's the CLOSEST to my belief system, it would in fact be Ron Paul.




> please take a shot at it.
> I wana hear your point of view


I'd have to actually read the thing.  I honestly don't know if TradCon is correct here, since I haven't read the other one.  I know that this one sucked but for all I know the other one did too.  I only read the one in this thread.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm pretty sure losing a "supporter" like you would be a massive boost to his campaign.


Why?  He just supports the platform Ron ran on in 2008 and 2012.  There's nothing unreasonable about wanting to support candidates who hold to the principles of non intervention.

----------


## Warlord

> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c113DRdvt6::
> 
> urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense *against Iran's nuclear weapons program.*


The passage makes it clear that whatever happens it comes back to Congress and does not authorize war, military action or anything else.

----------


## cero

> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c113DRdvt6::
> 
> urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense *against Iran's nuclear weapons program.*


I like how you ignored this part

(8) urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

SEC. 2. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.
Calendar No. 43

the one rand voted against is way worse than this one, as it said that PREEMPTIVE WAR was the only alternative left.


just shows how out of it you are to say this bill is worse than the bill that says we will go to war if Iran gets a nuke
please go.

----------


## tsai3904

> Setting aside the trolling and counter trolling and setting aside my own views on Rand, can someone give me a good reason for Rand voting for this resolution when A. He had just spoken out against foreign policy consensus in a meaningful way the day before B. He had been the lone vote against a previous resolution with similarly dangerous language and C. He could have easily not voted up or down?  What is the argument for voting for the resolution?


I think Rand agrees with a lot of the resolution.  Rand has stated that an attack on Israel is an attack on US and that he doesn't think Iran should have nuclear weapons.  Rand was also supposedly able to add the language of "legitimate" self defense and requiring Congressional authority to authorize force.  Rand's been speaking out that if we use military force anywhere, Congress needs to vote on it.

The main disagreement with others here is if this resolution is supportive of pre-emptive war.  I don't see it and it's extremely hard to believe that Rand all of a sudden supports the concept of pre-emptive war.  It's more probable that Rand views this as preventing pre-emptive war by requiring a vote of Congress before anything happens.

----------


## Brett85

> The passage makes it clear that whatever happens it comes back to Congress and does not authorize war, military action or anything else.


Then what's the point of voting for the resolution?

----------


## Warlord

> Why?  He just supports the platform Ron ran on in 2008 and 2012.  There's nothing unreasonable about wanting to support candidates who hold to the principles of non intervention.


This resolution does not authorize any intervention.  SO a non-interventionist can absolutely vote for this.

But no matter how many times you dont want to accept this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Right You haven't got a clue what a war is kid. "Actually fight for our FREEDOMS!!!!!" God have I heard that one before.


That was the point.  Fighting everywhere else is NOT "Fighting for our freedoms."

I bet people like you would have condemned the Founders as well when they revolted against England.

I don't support civil war.  I support secession.  Any war would be initiated by the Feds.




> I'm pretty sure losing a "supporter" like you would be a massive boost to his campaign.


Good for Rand, and he'll probably get ten neocon supporters for every libertarian he loses.  Don't you see where this leads?  Rand Paul may win, but we won't, he'll rule for the neocons and not for us.



> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c113DRdvt6::
> 
> urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense *against Iran's nuclear weapons program.*


This.

@TaftFan- If you support bombing Iran, I would never support you for any political position at the Federal level.

----------


## supermario21

> Then what's the point of voting for the resolution?


Because it's a meaningless vote. If Rand votes no his presidential aspirations are gone. Rand speaks out against arming Syrian rebels in a 15-3 vote on the foreign relations committee but gets almost no praise, yet this meaningless vote comes up and people are ready to crucify him.

----------


## DylanWaco

If the bill  is meaningless/non-binding how the hell can it be argued that it "requires" anything for further action?

----------


## Brett85

> the one rand voted against is way worse that this one, as it said that PREEMPTIVE WAR was the only alternative left.


The one Rand voted against simply said that containment shouldn't be an option.  It was also a non binding resolution that had no force of law, and it also contained the line "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

----------


## cero

> I'd have to actually read the thing.  I honestly don't know if TradCon is correct here, since I haven't read the other one.  I know that this one sucked but for all I know the other one did too.  I only read the one in this thread.


lmao please GET THE $#@! OUT, you are bitching and moaning about something you have no $#@!ing clue about?
go back to the daily paul please.

----------


## DylanWaco

> Because it's a meaningless vote. If Rand votes no his presidential aspirations are gone.


Then he's $#@!ed because the previous 1 v. 99 vote he cast on the same issue was an AIPAC special.

----------


## cero

> The one Rand voted against simply said that containment shouldn't be an option.  It was also a non binding resolution that had no force of law, and it also contained the line "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."


isn't that the same with this new bill?

----------


## Brett85

> Because it's a meaningless vote. *If Rand votes no his presidential aspirations are gone.*


Oh please.  That's ridiculous.  Then I guess his presidential aspirations were gone when he voted against the last Iran resolution which was a 99-1 vote.

----------


## supermario21

> Then he's $#@!ed because the previous 1 v. 99 vote he cast on the same issue was an AIPAC special.


No, Rand will just be able to say that I want Congress to declare war.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Why?  He just supports the platform Ron ran on in 2008 and 2012.  There's nothing unreasonable about wanting to support candidates who hold to the principles of non intervention.


I have stated that I could tolerate Rand's support for sanctions and defending allies, since even though I dislike those things, I don't view them as the same as actual war.  I drew my line in the sand at actual war a long time ago.  Every single senator failed me there.  In ninety-eight cases, I wouldn't have supported them anyway.  Rand Paul and Mike Lee lost a lot of my respect today.

Ron Paul probably is more pragmatic than me with endorsements, but he's a politician, and Rand is his son.  I'm not in either situation and I see no reason to compromise even further for Rand.  We need a better candidate.

----------


## devil21

> Honestly, does no one here look up things for themselves?
> 
> http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/05/15/aipac/


I didn't ask for blogger spin.  I asked for the text of the resolution that Rand voted against.  TC brought it up, his job to provide source material when asked.

----------


## Warlord

The resolution DOES NOT authorize any military action or deployment. There is no INTERVENTION in it.

----------


## Brett85

> isn't that the same with this new bill?


Yes.  So why didn't Rand vote against this one as well?

----------


## Brett85

> The resolution DOES NOT authorize any military action or deployment. There is no INTERVENTION in it.


You could technically say the same thing about the resolution that Rand voted against since it says "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

----------


## DylanWaco

> This resolution does not authorize any intervention.  SO a non-interventionist can absolutely vote for this.
> 
> But no matter how many times you dont want to accept this.


A resolution calling for support (perhaps even support of arms depending on how one reads it) of one foreign nation against another based on what sort of technology said nation develops is hardly a resolution devoid of interventionism.  I get that it's non-binding, but let's be serious.

----------


## cero

> Then he's $#@!ed because the previous 1 v. 99 vote he cast on the same issue was an AIPAC special.


na you are wrong that bill where he voted 99-1 is very clear a vote against war, a vote against PREEMPTIVE WAR, so if they bring this up during election war, Rand can say he is against more wars which the american people agree with it.

but this new bill, this simply says that we stand with Israel if they get LEGITIMATELY attacked, which is true I guess.
imagine if they bring that $#@! against him in the debates SENATOR PAUL YOU VOTED AGAINST STANDING WITH ISRAEL WHATS THAT ALL ABOUT.

----------


## Brett85

> I have stated that I could tolerate Rand's support for sanctions and defending allies, since even though I dislike those things, I don't view them as the same as actual war.  I drew my line in the sand at actual war a long time ago.


Yeah, you're not being unreasonable at all.  You already gave Rand the benefit of the doubt a lot of times when you disagreed with his votes or his public statements.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because it's a meaningless vote. If Rand votes no his presidential aspirations are gone. Rand speaks out against arming Syrian rebels in a 15-3 vote on the foreign relations committee but gets almost no praise, yet this meaningless vote comes up and people are ready to crucify him.


Good for him on the Syrian vote.  But this isn't a utilitarian costs vs benefits thing for me.  This vote makes me seriously suspicious of Rand, and even if he is just "Playing the game", I can't vote for anyone who votes for aggressive war on principle.  I wish you guys the best but I just can't do it.  




> The one Rand voted against simply said that containment shouldn't be an option.  It was also a non binding resolution that had no force of law, and it also contained the line "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."


To be fair, this one has that same meaningless line at the end.  Just because  it says not to construct it that way doesn't mean they won't, however.




> lmao please GET THE $#@! OUT, you are bitching and moaning about something you have no $#@!ing clue about?
> go back to the daily paul please.


I didn't say anything about the other vote, only this one.  TradCon mentioned the other sanctions vote.  LEARN TO FREAKING READ!

I've also never been a member of the Daily Paul.

----------


## Warlord

> You could technically say the same thing about the resolution that Rand voted against since it says "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."


Um... is this what you're reduced to then?  His vote against one and for one are two separate things.  I bet he has his own reasons but i cant be bothered looking it up. This resolution is quite WEAK compared to previous ones they pass for Iraq and stuff. This doesn't even talk about regime change or anything and it says anything comes back to congress.  This is a weak resolution.  You're attempts to paint it otherwise have failed and your trolling exposed.

----------


## Brett85

> but this new bill, this simply says that we stand with Israel if they get LEGITIMATELY attacked, which is true I guess.


No, the bill says absolutely nothing about an "attack" on Israel.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, you're not being unreasonable at all.  You already gave Rand the benefit of the doubt a lot of times when you disagreed with his votes or his public statements.


Thank you!  It feels like the voices of sanity are dwindling fast around here, and I'm glad to see there are still a few of us.

Honestly, if Ron Paul wasn't related to Rand I think Ron would condemn this vote.  I STILL wouldn't be surprised if the RPI does so even if Rand personally doesn't say anything.

----------


## Brett85

> Um... is this what you're reduced to then?  His vote against one and for one are two separate things.  I bet he has his own reasons but i cant be bothered looking it up. This resolution is quite WEAK compared to previous ones they pass for Iraq and stuff. This doesn't even talk about regime change or anything and it says anything comes back to congress.  This is a weak resolution.  You're attempts to paint it otherwise have failed and your trolling exposed.


I have to ask you this again.  How can you call me a "troll" when you've already been banned from this forum for inappropriate behavior?

----------


## DylanWaco

> na you are wrong that bill where he voted 99-1 is very clear a vote against war, a vote against PREEMPTIVE WAR, so if they bring this up during election war, Rand can say he is against more wars which the american people agree with it.
> 
> but this new bill, this simply says that we stand with Israel if they get LEGITIMATELY attacked, which is true I guess.
> imagine if they bring that $#@! against him in the debates SENATOR PAUL YOU VOTED AGAINST STANDING WITH ISRAEL WHATS THAT ALL ABOUT.


How am I wrong?  You claimed the first bill was AIPAC special.  Claimed Rand had to vote for this bill because fear of anti-semitism smear and this vote insulates him from that.  Are you seriously pretending the crowd that does the smearing is going to say "boy that first Israel Lobby bill he was the lone voter against wasn't an anti-semetic vote, but this second one DEFINITELY WAS!"  I can't imagine anyone even vaguely familiar with the way AIPAC and their various offshoots/fellow travelers operates would believe that.

----------


## Warlord

> A resolution calling for support (perhaps even support of arms depending on how one reads it) of one foreign nation against another based on what sort of technology said nation develops is hardly a resolution devoid of interventionism.  I get that it's non-binding, but let's be serious.


The only concession is on nuke weapons but Rand has made this concession before and the resolution doesn't say military action to prevent them from getting it just "such action" (which can mean sanctions which he already supports).  There is no regime change like the Iraq ones of time gone by and certainly no authorization for war, military deployment or anything else. It's pretty weak.

----------


## cero

> Yes.  So why didn't Rand vote against this one as well?


lmmaooooooooooooo, so you are saying that the other bill is irrelevant because to quote you: "is non binding resolution that had no force of law"
but for this bill,  you are throwing fits all over the place,  even thou again to quote you is a "non binding resolution that had no force of law"
you are a hypocrite you know that...

also, for you to tell me that sending economic aid to Israel is WORSE than preemptive war with Iran, just shows how much of a tard you are.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Um... is this what you're reduced to then?  His vote against one and for one are two separate things.  I bet he has his own reasons but i cant be bothered looking it up. This resolution is quite WEAK compared to previous ones they pass for Iraq and stuff. This doesn't even talk about regime change or anything and it says anything comes back to congress.  This is a weak resolution.  You're attempts to paint it otherwise have failed and your trolling exposed.


What if Rand voted for a resolution suggesting that parents should be able to kill their two year old children but this resolution was simply a "Recommendation" for policy and was not binding.  Would you still support him?

Its hard because EVERYONE, and I include myself in that category, has so much programming to get out of their heads, but what Rand voted for is literally worse than the fake resolution I invented last paragraph.  This gives the COMMANDER IN CHIEF (Who obviously cares a LOT less about children than the average parent does about their own) to drop evil bombs on the Iranians' children, in order to stop them from getting a nuke for the purpose of protecting themselves from becomming another Iraq, like a certain REAL supporter of liberty pointed out (Thank you to Cajuncocoa for that video in the other thread.)

I don't claim to get everything right, but war with Iran is no freaking joke...




> No, the bill says absolutely nothing about an "attack" on Israel.

----------


## Warlord

> I have to ask you this again.  How can you call me a "troll" when you've already been banned from this forum for inappropriate behavior?


Warlord studied the relevant rules following advice from his cousin.

----------


## klamath

> That was the point.  Fighting everywhere else is NOT "Fighting for our freedoms."
> 
> I bet people like you would have condemned the Founders as well when they revolted against England.
> 
> I don't support civil war.  *I support secession.  Any war would be initiated by the Feds.*
> 
> Good for Rand, and he'll probably get ten neocon supporters for every libertarian he loses.  Don't you see where this leads?  Rand Paul may win, but we won't, he'll rule for the neocons and not for us.
> 
> 
> ...


 Ah so you support an action that will result in war...... Some peace lover you are Yeaw I might have been reluctant to put the life of my family  on the line to fight for TJ's right to get rich off the backs of slaves and to make sure he NEVER had to go before the muskets.

----------


## cero

> How am I wrong?  You claimed the first bill was AIPAC special.  Claimed Rand had to vote for this bill because fear of anti-semitism smear and this vote insulates him from that.  Are you seriously pretending the crowd that does the smearing is going to say "boy that first Israel Lobby bill he was the lone voter against wasn't an anti-semetic vote, but this second one DEFINITELY WAS!"  I can't imagine anyone even vaguely familiar with the way AIPAC and their various offshoots/fellow travelers operates would believe that.



again read what the $#@! i said, the first vote was a vote AGAINST WAR, which is way easier to defend if rand is attacked with it in 2016
but this bill, is a bill not about wAR but about standing with Israel if LEGITIMATELY attacked.

----------


## tsai3904

The last resolution Rand voted against had this line:




> (7) rejects any United States policy that would rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable Iran


Rand spoke out against this line because saying containment is not an option is an endorsement of pre-emptive war.

Listen to him speak out against pre-emptive war just six months ago:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFip8TclifU

This resolution doesn't say that containment is not an option and this resolution requires Congressional approval of force (which the last resolution did not).  I still think it's more probable that Rand supports this resolution because he supports most of the language and that it actually tries to prevent a pre-emptive war.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Warlord studied the relevant rules following advice from his cousin.


You're referring to yourself in the third person. Multiple times.  Either you're venom, gollum, or itshappening.  Which one is it?


And where are you guys getting this "Attack" on Israel crap that TradCon correctly identified as non-existant?

----------


## TaftFan

The way I see it, Rand may turn off some hardcore supporters but if elected would probably have the most libertarian foreign policy in a century. But he has made clear he isn't a noninterventionist. Keep in mind that minarchists or constitutionalists automatically violate libertarian principles as well in the domestic spheres.

Following simple ideas like the following automatically reduce conflict and military spending while still allowing us to be safe:

*only Congress may declare war
*wars will be fought swiftly and to win, not nation build
*brinkmanship with other nations will only occur with those aggressively positioning themselves against us
*terrorism will be fought with special forces and letters of marque and reprisal

----------


## sailingaway

> Um... is this what you're reduced to then?  His vote against one and for one are two separate things.  I bet he has his own reasons but i cant be bothered looking it up. This resolution is quite WEAK compared to previous ones they pass for Iraq and stuff. This doesn't even talk about regime change or anything and it says anything comes back to congress.  This is a weak resolution.  You're attempts to paint it otherwise have failed and your trolling exposed.


says the guy from May 2013 (?)

It is on all sides though. We can disagree without attacking forum members, and remember that attacks are against TOS.

----------


## Brett85

> lmmaooooooooooooo, so you are saying that the other bill is irrelevant because to quote you: "is non binding resolution that had no force of law"
> but for this bill,  you are throwing fits all over the place,  even thou again to quote you is a "non binding resolution that had no force of law"
> you are a hypocrite you know that...
> 
> also, for you to tell me that sending economic aid to Israel is WORSE than preemptive war with Iran, just shows how much of a tard you are.


It's not economic aid, the resolution mentions "military aid," which means using military action to help them.  I didn't say that the first resolution was meaningless but this one isn't.  I was saying that if your argument is that Rand should just vote in favor of all non binding resolutions because they're all "meaningless," then he should've voted in favor of the first one as well.

----------


## Warlord

> The last resolution Rand voted against had this line:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand spoke out against this line because saying containment is not an option is an endorsement of pre-emptive war.
> 
> Listen to him speak out against pre-emptive war just six months ago:
> 
> 
> ...


Rand's a neocon!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Warlord studied the relevant rules following advice from his cousin.





> The last resolution Rand voted against had this line:
> 
> 
> 
> Rand spoke out against this line because saying containment is not an option is an endorsement of pre-emptive war.
> 
> Listen to him speak out against pre-emptive war just six months ago:
> 
> 
> ...


No it doesn't try to "Stop" anything.  A real freedom lover, such as Ron Paul, tries to "Stop" an aggressive war by opposing the aggressive war, and pointing out that Iran actually wants these weapons for its own protection.  

If Rand Paul opposed this kind of thing six months ago, all that tells me is that DC corrupts me.  I actually feel stupid now because the LewRockwell crowd and a couple of other ancaps pointed out to me that Rand would almost certainly sell out and I didn't believe he would.  I was wrong.

I know he's iffy now, but I STRONGLY believe that by 2016, TradCon won't be supporting Rand anymore.

----------


## devil21

> Thank you!  It feels like the voices of sanity are dwindling fast around here, and I'm glad to see there are still a few of us.


Oh good god.  

Clearly you and TC are working together here to sow division and bury pertinent posts with mindless turbo-posting.  It's pretty transparent that your sig is a complete lie, never mind attacking long established members that are trying to talk some sense into you, etc.  Classic troll flowchart at work.  You seriously underestimate the members of this forum if you think this bull$#@! is having any effect other than exposing yourself as a liar and a troll.

----------


## Brett85

> says the guy from May 2013 (?)
> 
> It is on all sides though. We can disagree without attacking forum members, and remember that attacks are against TOS.


Yep.  Those of us who are criticizing Rand for this vote aren't personally attacking other members or personally attacking Rand.  We're just making our case in a civil way without any name calling like "troll" or "tard" or any of this other garbage.

----------


## Brett85

> Oh good god.  
> 
> Clearly you and TC are working together here to sow division and bury pertinent posts with mindless turbo-posting.  It's pretty transparent that your sig is a complete lie, never mind attacking long established members that are trying to talk some sense into you, etc.  Classic troll flowchart at work.  You seriously underestimate the members of this forum if you think this bull$#@! is having any effect other than exposing yourself as a liar and a troll.


You and others are the only ones trying to divide others with your personal attacks.  Freedom Fanatic and I have both made our points in a reasonable way without attacking other forum members.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The way I see it, Rand may turn off some hardcore supporters but if elected would probably have the most libertarian foreign policy in a century. But he has made clear he isn't a noninterventionist. Keep in mind that minarchists or constitutionalists automatically violate libertarian principles as well in the domestic spheres.
> 
> Following simple ideas like the following automatically reduce conflict and military spending while still allowing us to be safe:
> 
> *only Congress may declare war
> *wars will be fought swiftly and to win, not nation build
> *brinkmanship with other nations will only occur with those aggressively positioning themselves against us
> *terrorism will be fought with special forces and letters of marque and reprisal


Libertarians aren't all anarchists, and there is disagreement on the exact details.  But yeah, I'm not going to disagree that the ancaps are probably the "Most pure."  But I'm not someone who can't tolerate any disagreement.  I've already stated that there are three issues where my ability to accept disagreement is extremely limited, and that's foreign policy, guns, and the Federal Reserve.  There's a lot of room for error there, but on those three I said I put my line in the sand very soon.





> says the guy from May 2013 (?)
> 
> It is on all sides though. We can disagree without attacking forum members, and remember that attacks are against TOS.


Sorry, I'm definitely in a bad mood today.  Is it legitimate to attack the traitor in the senate at least?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh good god.  
> 
> Clearly you and TC are working together here to sow division and bury pertinent posts with mindless turbo-posting.  It's pretty transparent that your sig is a complete lie, never mind attacking long established members that are trying to talk some sense into you, etc.  Classic troll flowchart at work.  You seriously underestimate the members of this forum if you think this bull$#@! is having any effect other than exposing yourself as a liar and a troll.


Now its a freaking conspiracy?  What the crap?

I'm not a "troll" for supporting Ron Paul's foreign policy and opposing those who reject it to the degree that his son has.

Now I'm just waiting for Rand to ask his dad to stay home for the campaign (Credit to Cajuncocoa if this actually happens, she predicted it first.)

----------


## Warlord

> Oh good god.  
> 
> Clearly you and TC are working together here to sow division and bury pertinent posts with mindless turbo-posting.  It's pretty transparent that your sig is a complete lie, never mind attacking long established members that are trying to talk some sense into you, etc.  Classic troll flowchart at work.  You seriously underestimate the members of this forum if you think this bull$#@! is having any effect other than exposing yourself as a liar and a troll.


This is the post of the thread.  Warlord congratulates the Devil.

----------


## cero

> It's not economic aid, the resolution mentions "military aid," which means using military action to help them.  I didn't say that the first resolution was meaningless but this one isn't.  I was saying that if your argument is that Rand should just vote in favor of all non binding resolutions because they're all "meaningless," then he should've voted in favor of the first one as well.


where the $#@! ARE YOU GETTING THIS, where IN THIS BILL DOES IT SAY WE TAKE MILITARY ACTIONS against IRAN, if Israel attacks them?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yep.  Those of us who are criticizing Rand for this vote aren't personally attacking other members or personally attacking Rand.  We're just making our case in a civil way without any name calling like "troll" or "tard" or any of this other garbage.


To be fair, I probably am "Personally attacking" Rand Paul, but I feel like he deserves it.  He just committed an act of treason against the United States as far as I'm concerned...

----------


## Brett85

> where the $#@! ARE YOU GETTING THIS, where IN THIS BILL DOES IT SAY WE TAKE MILITARY ACTIONS against IRAN, if Israel attacks them?


"to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel"

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This is the post of the thread.  Warlord *congratulates the Devil*.


And the Rand Paul movement shows its true colors

OK, that one just set me up perfectly...  Sorry... That one WAS a joke.

----------


## Brett85

The resolution specifically says "military support."

----------


## DylanWaco

> again read what the $#@! i said, the first vote was a vote AGAINST WAR, which is way easier to defend if rand is attacked with it in 2016
> but this bill, is a bill not about wAR but about standing with Israel if LEGITIMATELY attacked.


I read what you said, the problem is I don't see how your argument works.  

You are arguing three things.

First thing you are arguing is that the first resolution was clearly worse, effectively called for pre-emptive war and was in fact an AIPAC written bill with Rand standing up as the long voice of reason to challenge AIPAC and their toadies in Congress.

Second thing you are arguing was the response to my question - i.e. Rand had to vote for this resolution to avoid deathblow "he's an anti-semite" accusation.

Third thing you are arguing is that this vote will be easy to square because it's cloaked in language about legitimate defense from attack.

But what you haven't answered is how the anti-semitism accusation won't apply to the first AIPAC written resolution?  Are you seriously arguing that a vote in which he was the lone dissenter to vote against AIPAC's pet project will be forgiven because he did vote for this bill?  If so what is the rational for that view?

----------


## sailingaway

> Libertarians aren't all anarchists, and there is disagreement on the exact details.  But yeah, I'm not going to disagree that the ancaps are probably the "Most pure."  But I'm not someone who can't tolerate any disagreement.  I've already stated that there are three issues where my ability to accept disagreement is extremely limited, and that's foreign policy, guns, and the Federal Reserve.  There's a lot of room for error there, but on those three I said I put my line in the sand very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I'm definitely in a bad mood today.  Is it legitimate to attack the traitor in the senate at least?


The thing about that is we usually allow some venting and actual attempts to figure out what is going on when some big event happens (at least unless it is really sensitive timing) even in that person's forum.

But at the end of the day, this is Rand's forum and it is here to support him, so if your purpose was to condemn Rand continually, rather than just finding out what is going on and reacting in the moment, this would not be the subforum to hang out in.

----------


## cero

> "to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel"


you forgot this part you giant trolling piece of dodo

*the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress* to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel


does the part in bold MEAN NOTHING TO YOU?
why the $#@! are you just picking and choosing whatever suits your trolling needs?

----------


## tsai3904

> The resolution specifically says "military support."


Do you believe Rand when he says an attack on Israel is an attack on US?

----------


## Brett85

> you forgot this part you giant trolling piece of dodo
> 
> *the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress* to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel
> 
> 
> does the part in bold MEAN NOTHING TO YOU?
> why the $#@! are you just picking and choosing whatever suits your trolling needs?


I'm no longer going to respond to any of your posts when you can't seem to have a civil conversation and simply engage in nasty personal attacks.

----------


## devil21

> "to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel"


Also says the resolution is not an AUMF and that any action on the part of Congress must go through proper Congressional procedure.  What's that mean?  It can be properly debated, properly voted on, and (hopefully) properly SHOT DOWN.  Like the Constitution proscribes.  Again, this is not the time for this battle....when the entire scenario is hypothetical and not even realistically likely to happen.

----------


## Brett85

> Do you believe Rand when he says an attack on Israel is an attack on US?


I didn't have as much of a problem with his statement on that since he was specifically talking about an "attack" on Israel.  I have a problem with the idea that the U.S government should provide military support to Israel if they decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which is what I believe this resolution says.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> The way I see it, Rand may turn off some hardcore supporters but if elected *would probably have the most libertarian foreign policy in a century.* But he has made clear he isn't a noninterventionist. Keep in mind that minarchists or constitutionalists automatically violate libertarian principles as well in the domestic spheres.


That's setting the bar incredibly low, isn't it?

----------


## cero

> I'm no longer going to respond to any of your posts when you can't seem to have a civil conversation and simply engage in nasty personal attacks.


I just called you out for picking and choosing w/e fits to support your arguments with out looking at the whole thing, and you pull this.....

wooow, is the internet grow a pair, the fact that you can't defend your arguments and instead hide behind the "your hurt MY FEELINGS SO I WONT TALK TO YOU" card to not even argue and try to defend your point is pathetic.

----------


## pcosmar

> where the $#@! ARE YOU GETTING THIS, where IN THIS BILL DOES IT SAY WE TAKE MILITARY ACTIONS against IRAN, if Israel attacks them?


You can bet we will when Israel gets it's nose bloodied. 
And they have been picking this fight.

But this is all predictable,, and must happen. I just wish the US would stay out of it.
It is clear that will NOT be the case.

----------


## tsai3904

> I didn't have as much of a problem with his statement on that since he was specifically talking about an "attack" on Israel.  I have a problem with the idea that the U.S government should provide military support to Israel if they decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which is what I believe this resolution says.


Is it possible that Rand views "legitimate" self defense as Israel being attacked?  Is that even a remote possibility given Rand's long held views against pre-emptive war?

----------


## devil21

Btw, did it occur to anyone that resolutions like this are _specifically offered_ to point out who AIPAC needs to politically target in advance of any military action or possibly even to single out "pesky" politicians like Rand for smearing?

So say Rand votes against it.  What's that mean?  AIPAC gets to start targeting him now since they have solid ammo to use against him to smear him.  Sure, the .01% that is the purist vote will be happy but the establishment then gets to tear him apart to the rest of the uninformed voting populace and blunt his power to be effective WHEN/IF such a military scenario arises.  They can just say "Oh ignore that guy, Krauthammer says he hates jews."  

Good lord, some people need to learn how politics works!

----------


## Brett85

> Is it possible that Rand views "legitimate" self defense as Israel being attacked?  Is that even a remote possibility given Rand's long held views against pre-emptive war?


I hope so.  I would like him to address this and explain his reasoning for this vote, but I doubt he will.

----------


## DylanWaco

> Btw, did it occur to anyone that resolutions like this are _specifically offered_ to point out who AIPAC needs to politically target in advance of any military action or possibly even to single out "pesky" politicians like Rand?
> 
> So say Rand votes against it.  What's that mean?  AIPAC gets to start targeting him now since they have solid ammo to use against him to smear him.  Sure, the .01% that is the purist vote will be happy but the establishment then gets to tear him apart to the rest of the uninformed voting populace and blunt his power to be effective WHEN/IF such a military scenario arises.  They can just say "Oh ignore that guy, Krauthammer says he hates jews."  
> 
> Good lord, some people need to learn how politics works!


This would be an entirely plausible explanation if Rand hadn't taken the stand he took on the previous bill and on Syria the day before, both hardline anti-AIPAC positions.

----------


## Brett85

> Btw, did it occur to anyone that resolutions like this are _specifically offered_ to point out who AIPAC needs to politically target in advance of any military action or possibly even to single out "pesky" politicians like Rand for smearing?
> 
> So say Rand votes against it.  What's that mean?  AIPAC gets to start targeting him now since they have solid ammo to use against him to smear him.  Sure, the .01% that is the purist vote will be happy but the establishment then gets to tear him apart to the rest of the uninformed voting populace and blunt his power to be effective WHEN/IF such a military scenario arises.  They can just say "Oh ignore that guy, Krauthammer says he hates jews."  
> 
> Good lord, some people need to learn how politics works!


Right, but if that was Rand's thinking he would've voted for the first AIPAC resolution that was a 99-1 vote.

----------


## sailingaway

> I just called you out for picking and choosing w/e fits to support your arguments with out looking at the whole thing, and you pull this.....
> 
> wooow, is the internet grow a pair, the fact that you can't defend your arguments and instead hide behind the "your hurt MY FEELINGS SO I WONT TALK TO YOU" card to not even argue and try to defend your point is pathetic.



cut it out.

----------


## cero

> You can bet we will when Israel gets it's nose bloodied. 
> And they have been picking this fight.
> 
> But this is all predictable,, and must happen. I just wish the US would stay out of it.
> It is clear that will NOT be the case.


yes and rand will be there to vote no against war with Iran.
besides this whole argument is dumb
Devil is right



> Also says the resolution is not an AUMF and that any action on the part of Congress must go through proper Congressional procedure.  What's that mean?  It can be properly debated, properly voted on, and (hopefully) properly SHOT DOWN.  Like the Constitution proscribes.  Again, this is not the time for this battle....when the entire scenario is hypothetical and not even realistically likely to happen.





> Also says the resolution is not an AUMF and that any action on the part of Congress must go through proper Congressional procedure.  What's that mean?  It can be properly debated, properly voted on, and (hopefully) properly SHOT DOWN.  Like the Constitution proscribes.  Again, this is not the time for this battle....when the entire scenario is hypothetical and not even realistically likely to happen.





> Also says the resolution is not an AUMF and that any action on the part of Congress must go through proper Congressional procedure.  What's that mean?  It can be properly debated, properly voted on, and (hopefully) properly SHOT DOWN.  Like the Constitution proscribes.  Again, this is not the time for this battle....when the entire scenario is hypothetical and not even realistically likely to happen.



and lol at traditional negging me for calling him out, please gooo

----------


## tsai3904

> I hope so.  I would like him to address this and explain his reasoning for this vote, but I doubt he will.


So it's clear that it's vague right?  If he doesn't address his position, wouldn't it be hard to emphatically say Rand supports pre-emptive war?

It's like that Feinstein amendment on indefinite detention where Rand, Mike Lee, McCain and Graham all voted for.  People were saying Rand voted to allow indefinite detention but it was clear that Rand's intent was to prohibit indefinite detention.  But since the amendment was vague, many people were claiming Rand sold out and voted for indefinite detention.

----------


## Warlord

> Right, but if that was Rand's thinking he would've voted for the first AIPAC resolution that was a 99-1 vote.


tsai has explained to you the difference but you keep repeating this line.... why dont you read what tsai posted again and watch the youtube video he posted?

----------


## cero

> cut it out.


ok....

but to be clear I called him out for nit picking, to justify his attacks on rand and then he refuses to acknowledged it....

----------


## Brett85

> So it's clear that it's vague right?  If he doesn't address his position, wouldn't it be hard to emphatically say Rand supports pre-emptive war?


Yes, but vagueness is a reason to vote against it, not for it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The thing about that is we usually allow some venting and actual attempts to figure out what is going on when some big event happens (at least unless it is really sensitive timing) even in that person's forum.
> 
> But at the end of the day, this is Rand's forum and it is here to support him, so if your purpose was to condemn Rand continually, rather than just finding out what is going on and reacting in the moment, this would not be the subforum to hang out in.


I'm just upset ATM.  I don't intend to continually harp on it forever.  If I cross any lines let me know and I'll back off.  I don't have any intention of making trouble here (Well, actual trouble anyway, I'm not just going to agree with people when I think they're wrong, of course.)




> Do you believe Rand when he says an attack on Israel is an attack on US?





> I didn't have as much of a problem with his statement on that since he was specifically talking about an "attack" on Israel.  I have a problem with the idea that the U.S government should provide military support to Israel if they decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which is what I believe this resolution says.


I still didn't like it, but I was willing to compromise that much.  Not with what he just voted for.




> That's setting the bar incredibly low, isn't it?


I question whether Rand could even restrain himself as much as Reagan at this point.  I only hope so.  Calvin Coolidge would absolutely blow him out of the water.  Carter sucked domestically but he would probably blow Rand out of the water on FP as well.




> I hope so.  I would like him to address this and explain his reasoning for this vote, but I doubt he will.


He'd better do a DARN good job if he wants any of my support.  As in, I can't see it happening.  The Bill is painfully clear and it doesn't limit itself to an actual attack on Israel.

----------


## Brett85

I didn't say that Rand supports "preemptive war."  I just said that he voted for a resolution that I view as a pledge to provide military support to Israel if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

----------


## devil21

> Right, but if that was Rand's thinking he would've voted for the first AIPAC resolution that was a 99-1 vote.


Still waiting for you to post the text of the resolution you keep referring to.  Maybe I missed it?

AIPAC would have _loved_ it if Rand voted against this resolution.  It would create a nice news cycle for slamming him, particularly after his polling numbers have been climbing steadily.  

You can call him a flip flopper if that's your argument but the rest of this thread is full of such hyperbole that it's impossible to take you seriously.

----------


## sailingaway

> but I called him out for nit picking, to justify his attacks on rand and then he refuses to acknowledged it....


It isn't your reason but your attacks that are the issue. You can say he is nit picking without:




> you forgot this part you giant trolling piece of dodo





> why the $#@! are you just picking and choosing whatever suits your trolling needs?





> wooow, is the internet grow a pair, the fact that you can't defend your arguments and instead hide behind the "your hurt MY FEELINGS SO I WONT TALK TO YOU" card to not even argue and try to defend your point is pathetic.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I didn't say that Rand supports "preemptive war."  I just said that he voted for a resolution that I view as a pledge to provide military support to Israel if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities.


Rand may well oppose preemptive war, but he just voted for a resolution that justifies it.  

That's simply not cool, for the same reason that a nonbinding resolution recommending that parents kill their two year old children would still simply not be cool.  And the reason for that is NOT because utilitarianism dictates that 99% of people wouldn't like it, its because its wrong!  And so the same principles apply.  Man up and vote principle.  Don't vote for Rand Paul.

----------


## Christian Liberty

@TC- Those last two sentences, for the record, were more addressed at other people than they are at you.

----------


## cero

> Rand may well oppose preemptive war, but he just voted for a resolution that justifies it.  
> 
> That's simply not cool, for the same reason that a nonbinding resolution recommending that parents kill their two year old children would still simply not be cool.  And the reason for that is NOT because utilitarianism dictates that 99% of people wouldn't like it, its because its wrong!  And so the same principles apply.  Man up and vote principle.  Don't vote for Rand Paul.



did you finally read the bill? because those are some pretty strong assertions you are making there.

----------


## tsai3904

> Yes, but vagueness is a reason to vote against it, not for it.


I agree with you and I wouldn't have voted for it.

What I have trouble with some is they don't take into account Rand's body of work (his speeches, votes, etc.).

When Rand said he supports drones killing a robber, it was 100% obvious to me given his filibuster and his fight against indefinite detention that he didn't support killing people with no due process or if it wasn't an imminent threat but some took Rand at his words and went around claiming that Rand supported killing people who just robbed a liquor store with no due process.

When Rand voted for that vague indefinite detention amendment by Feinsten, it was obvious to me that Rand wasn't intending to support indefinite detention given his past statements.  It may have been a bad interpretation of the bill but I doubt his intentions changed.

It's the same in this situation for me.  Just six months ago, Rand was on the floor arguing against pre-emptive war.  This resolution is much different than the last one and it says Congressional approval is required.  Given Rand's history, I highly doubt Rand changed his view on pre-emptive war.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> did you finally read the bill? because those are some pretty strong assertions you are making there.


I'm not talking about that other bill that Rand voted against.  I'm talking about THIS bill.  And yes, I read it in the OP.

----------


## DylanWaco

> Still waiting for you to post the text of the resolution you keep referring to.  Maybe I missed it?
> 
> AIPAC would have _loved_ it if Rand voted against this resolution.  It would create a nice news cycle for slamming him, particularly after his polling numbers have been climbing steadily.  
> 
> You can call him a flip flopper if that's your argument but the rest of this thread is full of such hyperbole that it's impossible to take you seriously.


The AIPAC bit has to be consistent or it needs to be retired.

You can't argue "AIPAC would have lost there $#@! if he had voted no here!" when he voted no on the previous AIPAC written bill (and was the only one to do so) and when he went the way he did on Syria the day before this vote.  

I understand that "he has to avoid the smear" is a convenient excuse for this vote, but it doesn't explain the previous vote, his stance against AIPAC hardline policy on Syria yesterday, et.

----------


## devil21

> Rand may well oppose preemptive war, but he just voted for a resolution that justifies it.


Oh really?  Far be it from me to defend Israel but the resolution says Israel's "self-defense", which implies defending oneself against an acting aggressor.  Nothing about preemptive war to be found in this resolution.  In fact, it says that the resolution is NOT an authorization for war, preemptive or otherwise.  Why do you and TC keep repeating the same falsehoods in this thread???




> Man up and vote principle. Don't vote for Rand Paul.


You're getting desperate.  Im afraid to ask who you think is a better alternative at this point.

----------


## Brett85

> Still waiting for you to post the text of the resolution you keep referring to.  Maybe I missed it?
> 
> AIPAC would have _loved_ it if Rand voted against this resolution.  It would create a nice news cycle for slamming him, particularly after his polling numbers have been climbing steadily.  
> 
> You can call him a flip flopper if that's your argument but the rest of this thread is full of such hyperbole that it's impossible to take you seriously.


This is a summary.


http://legiscan.com/US/bill/SJR41/2011

"Reaffirms that the U.S. government and the governments of other responsible countries have a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Urges economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until it implements: (1) suspension of uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and is in compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, (2) cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concerning Iran's nuclear activities, and (3) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. Supports: (1) the P5+1 process, (2) the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran, and (3) U.S. policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Joins the President in ruling out any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat. States that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."

----------


## cero

> I'm not talking about that other bill that Rand voted against.  I'm talking about THIS bill.  And yes, I read it in the OP.


good then how does this bill support sending thousands of men and women to go fight in Iran, if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear reactors?

----------


## Brett85

> What I have trouble with some is they don't take into account Rand's body of work (his speeches, votes, etc.).


I do, and I'm not saying that I don't support Rand overall.  I just think he made an absolutely terrible vote here, and I'm calling him out on it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

The wording there is tricky.  I think you COULD use that to say the preemptive war is justified but its not as obvious as the one in the OP...

----------


## Christian Liberty

Primarily section 5, also section 8.

----------


## cero

> The wording there is tricky.  I think you COULD use that to say the preemptive war is justified but its not as obvious as the one in the OP...


could you please point me to the wording, and where the trickiness ensues... please

----------


## devil21

> The AIPAC bit has to be consistent or it needs to be retired.
> 
> You can't argue "AIPAC would have lost there $#@! if he had voted no here!" when he voted no on the previous AIPAC written bill (and was the only one to do so) and when he went the way he did on Syria the day before this vote.  
> 
> I understand that "he has to avoid the smear" is a convenient excuse for this vote, but it doesn't explain the previous vote, his stance against AIPAC hardline policy on Syria yesterday, et.


I still don't even know what this previous vote was on!  STILL NO ONE POSTS THE TEXT!  Did it say that the US can just go bomb Iran without Congressional authorization?  Do you think AIPAC would be in a hurry to shout that from the rooftops to smear Rand for his vote?  "Hey everyone, Rand Paul hates Jews because he didn't vote for carpet bombing Tehran without Congressional approval!"  

I wish people would stop referring to a resolution that hasn't even been posted.  I didn't say _every_ resolution is offered for targeting purposes, just that some of them are.  The one he voted against before may have actually been policy related while this one not.  It's possible.

----------


## Brett85

> I still don't even know what this previous vote was on!  STILL NO ONE POSTS THE TEXT!  Did it say that the US can just go bomb Iran without Congressional authorization?  Do you think AIPAC would be in a hurry to shout that from the rooftops to smear Rand for his vote?  "Hey everyone, Rand Paul hates Jews because he didn't vote for carpet bombing Tehran without Congressional approval!"  
> 
> I wish people would stop referring to a resolution that hasn't even been posted.  I didn't say _every_ resolution is offered for targeting purposes, just that some of them are.  The one he voted against before may have actually been policy related while this one not.  It's possible.


Post #324 is a summary.  I can try to find the entire text if you want.

----------


## tsai3904

Daniel McAdams' (Ron's foreign policy advisor) insight on the resolution:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/137889.html

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh really?  Far be it from me to defend Israel but the resolution says Israel's "self-defense", which implies defending oneself against an acting aggressor.  Nothing about preemptive war to be found in this resolution.  In fact, it says that the resolution is NOT an authorization for war, preemptive or otherwise.  Why do you and TC keep repeating the same falsehoods in this thread???
> 
> 
> 
> You're getting desperate.  Im afraid to ask who you think is a better alternative at this point.


It really doesn't matter.  I'd sooner simply write down Laurence Vance's name simply to give the ultimate middle finger to the neocons.  I hope we'll have a good enough LP or CP candidate I can vote for but if not I'd sooner write someone in than vote for Rand.

----------


## devil21

> This is a summary.
> 
> 
> http://legiscan.com/US/bill/SJR41/2011
> 
> "Reaffirms that the U.S. government and the governments of other responsible countries have a vital interest in working together to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Warns that time is limited to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Urges economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran until it implements: (1) suspension of uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and is in compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions, (2) cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concerning Iran's nuclear activities, and (3) a permanent agreement that verifiably assures that Iran's nuclear program is peaceful. Supports: (1) the P5+1 process, (2) the universal rights and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran, and (3) U.S. policy to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Joins the President in ruling out any policy that would rely on containment as an option in response to the Iranian nuclear threat. States that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war."


Forget the summary.  Here is the actual text.

http://gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112sj...2sjres41es.pdf

JOINT RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the nuclear
program of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Whereas, since at least the late 1980s, the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran has engaged in a sustained and
well-documented pattern of illicit and deceptive activities
to acquire nuclear capability;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council has adopted
multiple resolutions since 2006 demanding the full and
sustained suspension of all uranium enrichment-related
and reprocessing activities by the Government of the Is-
lamic Republic of Iran and its full cooperation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on all out-
standing issues related to its nuclear activities, particu-
larly those concerning the possible military dimensions of
its nuclear program;
Whereas, on November 8, 2011, the IAEA issued an exten-
sive report that—
(1) documents ‘‘serious concerns regarding possible
military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme’’;
(2) states that ‘‘Iran has carried out activities rel-
evant to the development of a nuclear device’’; and
(3) states that the efforts described in paragraphs
(1) and (2) may be ongoing; 

Whereas, as of November 2008, Iran had produced, accord-
ing to the IAEA—
(1) approximately 630 kilograms of uranium
hexaflouride enriched up to 3.5 percent uranium-235;
and
(2) no uranium hexaflouride enriched up to 20 per-
cent uranium-235;
Whereas, as of November 2011, Iran had produced, accord-
ing to the IAEA—
(1) nearly 5,000 kilograms of uranium hexaflouride
enriched up to 3.5 percent uranium-235; and
(2) 79.7 kilograms of uranium hexaflouride enriched
up to 20 percent uranium-235;
Whereas, on January 9, 2012, IAEA inspectors confirmed
that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran had
begun enrichment activities at the Fordow site, including
possibly enrichment of uranium hexaflouride up to 20
percent uranium-235;
Whereas section 2(2) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions,
Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public Law
111–195) states, ‘‘The United States and other respon-
sible countries have a vital interest in working together
to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nu-
clear weapons capability.’’;
Whereas if the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
were successful in acquiring a nuclear weapon capability,
it would likely spur other countries in the region to con-
sider developing their own nuclear weapons capabilities;
Whereas, on December 6, 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal of
Saudi Arabia stated that if international efforts to pre-
vent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons fail, ‘‘we must,
as a duty to our country and people, look into all options
we are given, including obtaining these weapons our-
selves’’;
Whereas top leaders of the Government of the Islamic Repub-
lic of Iran have repeatedly threatened the existence of the
State of Israel, pledging to ‘‘wipe Israel off the map’’;
Whereas the Department of State has designated Iran as a
state sponsor of terrorism since 1984 and characterized
Iran as the ‘‘most active state sponsor of terrorism’’;
Whereas the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has
provided weapons, training, funding, and direction to ter-
rorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shiite
militias in Iraq that are responsible for the murders of
hundreds of United States forces and innocent civilians;
Whereas, on July 28, 2011, the Department of the Treasury
charged that the Government of Iran had forged a ‘‘se-
cret deal’’ with al Qaeda to facilitate the movement of al
Qaeda fighters and funding through Iranian territory;
Whereas, in October 2011, senior leaders of Iran’s Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force were im-
plicated in a terrorist plot to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s
Ambassador to the United States on United States soil;
Whereas, on December 26, 2011, the United Nations General
Assembly passed a resolution denouncing the serious
human rights abuses occurring in the Islamic Republic of
Iran, including torture, cruel and degrading treatment in
detention, the targeting of human rights defenders, vio-
lence against women, and ‘‘the systematic and serious re-
strictions on freedom of peaceful assembly’’ as well as se-
vere restrictions on the rights to ‘‘freedom of thought,
conscience, religion or belief’’; 

Whereas President Barack Obama, through the P5+1 proc-
ess, has made repeated efforts to engage the Government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran in dialogue about Iran’s
nuclear program and its international commitments
under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July
1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (com-
monly known as the ‘‘Nuclear Non-Proliferation Trea-
ty’’);
Whereas representatives of the P5+1 countries (the United
States, France, Germany, the People’s Republic of China,
the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom) and
representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran held nego-
tiations on Iran’s nuclear program in Istanbul, Turkey on
April 14, 2012, and these discussions are set to resume
in Baghdad, Iraq on May 23, 2012;
Whereas, on March 31, 2010, President Obama stated that
the ‘‘consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are unaccept-
able’’;
Whereas in his State of the Union Address on January 24,
2012, President Obama stated, ‘‘Let there be no doubt:
America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nu-
clear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to
achieve that goal.’’;
Whereas, on March 4, 2012, President Obama stated ‘‘Iran’s
leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of
containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtain-
ing a nuclear weapon’’;
Whereas Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta stated, in De-
cember 2011, that it was unacceptable for Iran to ac-
quire nuclear weapons, reaffirmed that all options were 

on the table to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons efforts,
and vowed that if the United States gets ‘‘intelligence
that they are proceeding with developing a nuclear weap-
on then we will take whatever steps necessary to stop it’’;
Whereas the Department of Defense’s January 2012 Stra-
tegic Guidance stated that United States defense efforts
in the Middle East would be aimed ‘‘to prevent Iran’s de-
velopment of a nuclear weapons capability and counter its
destabilizing policies’’; and
Whereas, on April 2, 2012, President Obama stated, ‘‘All the
evidence indicates that the Iranians are trying to develop
the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. They might de-
cide that, once they have that capacity that they’d hold
off right at the edge in order not to incur more sanctions.
But, if they’ve got nuclear weapons-building capacity and
they are flouting international resolutions, that creates
huge destabilizing effects in the region and will trigger an
arms race in the Middle East that is bad for U.S. na-
tional security but is also bad for the entire world.’’:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
1
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2
SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
3
That Congress—
4
(1) reaffirms that the United States Govern-
5
ment and the governments of other responsible coun-
6
tries have a vital interest in working together to pre-
7
vent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nu-
8
clear weapons capability; 

(2) warns that time is limited to prevent the
1
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from ac-
2
quiring a nuclear weapons capability;
3
(3) urges continued and increasing economic
4
and diplomatic pressure on the Islamic Republic of
5
Iran until the Government of the Islamic Republic of
6
Iran agrees to and implements—
7
(A) the full and sustained suspension of all
8
uranium enrichment-related and reprocessing
9
activities and compliance with United Nations
10
Security Council resolutions;
11
(B) complete cooperation with the IAEA
12
on all outstanding questions related to the nu-
13
clear activities of the Government of the Islamic
14
Republic of Iran, including the implementation
15
of the additional protocol to Iran’s Safeguards
16
Agreement with the IAEA; and
17
(C) a permanent agreement that verifiably
18
assures that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely
19
peaceful;
20
(4) expresses the desire that the P5+1 process
21
successfully and swiftly leads to the objectives identi-
22
fied in paragraph (3), but warns that, as President
23
Obama has said, the window for diplomacy is closing

(5) expresses support for the universal rights
1
and democratic aspirations of the people of Iran;
2
(6) strongly supports United States policy to
3
prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of
4
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability;
5
(7) rejects any United States policy that would
6
rely on efforts to contain a nuclear weapons-capable
7
Iran; and
8
(8) joins the President in ruling out any policy
9
that would rely on containment as an option in re-
10
sponse to the Iranian nuclear threat.
11
SEC. 2. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
12
Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an
13
authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war.
14
Passed the Senate September 22 (legislative day,
September 21), 2012. 

So now let's determine just how different this really is.

----------


## Brett85

> So now let's determine just how different this really is.


I think the point is that Rand doesn't vote a certain way on these resolutions for political reasons, as you and others seemed to be saying earlier.  If he voted a certain way for political reasons, he would've voted in favor of the last AIPAC resolution, since he received a lot of criticism from AIPAC and other organizations for that vote.  So the only conclusion that makes sense is that Rand simply didn't have any problem with the text of this resolution.

----------


## devil21

Biggest difference I note immediately is that the one Rand voted against has absolutely not a single mention of Israel in it.  Maybe that's why AIPAC wouldn't use that as a smear since it's supposed to be about America "defending" from Iranian nukes and nothing whatsoever about Israel?

Hmmm.......

----------


## Brett85

> Daniel McAdams' (Ron's foreign policy advisor) insight on the resolution:
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/137889.html


That's a much harsher criticism of this resolution than I've made.

----------


## devil21

Awwww....I point out that the resolutions are _completely different_ and the one Rand voted for today is likely a deliberate smear set-up attempt by AIPAC, all the loudmouth anti-Rand turbo posters get quiet?  Well that's no fun.  I like watching yall squirm.

Well played Rand.  This guy is smart.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Biggest difference I note immediately is that the one Rand voted against has absolutely not a single mention of Israel in it.  Maybe that's why AIPAC wouldn't use that as a smear since it's supposed to be about America "defending" from Iranian nukes and nothing whatsoever about Israel?
> 
> Hmmm.......


So he puts Israel first like everyone else here?  No thanks...

Nehanyathu wants to get off our aid but we won't let them, imagine that.  I think Rand Paul officially hates Iran more than Nehanyathu does (Arguably America too, by extension.)




> That's a much harsher criticism of this resolution than I've made.


Daniel was completely correct.  I mean, I suppose Rand COULD vote against the next one, but why would he?  He'd tick off the precious neocons and he's already lost part of his father's base through his own idiocy.

Heck, I still don't know if he's being a moron or a genius.  If he's willing to do whatever it takes to get in, distancing himself from us and his dad and becoming a mainstream Republican is probably wise.  I just don't think we'll like what we see once he gets in.

Good luck guys, but Daniel McAdams hit the nail on the head on this one.  Rand Paul cannot be trusted, end of story.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Awwww....I point out that the resolutions are _completely different_ and the one Rand voted for today is likely a deliberate smear set-up attempt by AIPAC, all the loudmouth anti-Rand turbo posters get quiet?  Well that's no fun.  I like watching yall squirm.
> 
> Well played Rand.  This guy is smart.


I was pro-Rand YESTERDAY.  I wasn't anti-Rand.  Rand LOST my vote.

----------


## Brett85

Does it not bother anyone that Lindsey Graham was the main proponent of this resolution and gave a speech on the Senate floor praising this resolution while using all kinds of blood thirsty rhetoric?

----------


## cero

> I was pro-Rand YESTERDAY.  I wasn't anti-Rand.  Rand LOST my vote.


please keep that to your self.

and also still waiting for you to answer post 329

----------


## DylanWaco

> Awwww....I point out that the resolutions are _completely different_ and the one Rand voted for today is likely a deliberate smear set-up attempt by AIPAC, all the loudmouth anti-Rand turbo posters get quiet?  Well that's no fun.  I like watching yall squirm.
> 
> Well played Rand.  This guy is smart.


The original thread was referred to as an AIPAC promoted and written resolution earlier in this thread.  Had you read the thread you would have noticed that

----------


## green73

> That's a much harsher criticism of this resolution than I've made.


Thanks for sharing.

----------


## tsai3904

> Does it not bother anyone that Lindsey Graham was the main proponent of this resolution and gave a speech on the Senate floor praising this resolution while using all kinds of blood thirsty rhetoric?


Yea but Rand's policy with Israel/Iran is completely different than Ron's.  I can't see Rand supporting a pre-emptive war but I can see Rand supporting a war if Israel is attacked, which I don't agree with Rand on.  

Assuming Rand believes this resolution doesn't support a pre-emptive war, I think Rand agrees with a lot of the points made in the resolution.

----------


## DylanWaco

It's a real shame that the Ron Paul Institute is sowing the seeds of division here.  Er...

----------


## cajuncocoa

I posted this video in another thread.  Should probably put it here, too:

----------


## Petar

Bummer. 

I'm a big Rand supporter, but this is sad. 

Oh well, Canadians can't vote in US elections anyway. 

Still hoping that Rand stays a big net-plus.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Daniel McAdams' (Ron's foreign policy advisor) insight on the resolution:
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/137889.html


For those who won't click the link:


> Today the US Senate voted unanimously in favor of a Lindsey Graham resolution, S.Res.65, which "[s]trongly support(s) the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and urg[es] the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation."
> The legislation, as expected from a Lindsey Graham product, is full of misstatements, historical revisionism, and war-drum-beating hyperbole. Particularly revolting is the distortion and lies about Iran's not being in compliance with IAEA nuclear safeguards requirements and the irony of Graham's using Iran's refusal to implement UN resolutions as evidence of its rogue status. Also deceptive is the sleight of hand claiming that Iran pursuing a "nuclear weapons _capability_" is the real violation, rather than an Iranian failure to uphold its agreed upon obligation to not actually divert fissile material to build a nuclear weapon. It is a unilateral lowering of the bar, which is in fact itself a US violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
> Most alarming, however, is that this resolution contains among the clearest legislative language to date promising that should Israel decide to attack Iran, the US would back Israel militarily. It is breathtakingly foolhardy for the US Senate to give such _carte blanche_ permission to _any_ foreign country to attack another nation as it sees fit with the promise of the backing of the United States military. The move will likely embolden Israel to continue recent escalation of military action in the region and will likely propel Israel closer to an attack on Iran. In economic theory this is known as "moral hazard."
> The resolved clauses of the resolution must be seen to be believed, so I reproduce them here (see especially the original point (8), which was apparently even too over-the-top for the Senators -- the substitute language is just as bad but it adds a layer of vagueness as a fig leaf):Congress--
> (1) reaffirms the special bonds of friendship and cooperation that have existed between the United States and the State of Israel for more than sixty years and that enjoy overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress and among the people of the United States;
> (2) strongly supports the close military, intelligence, and security cooperation that President Obama has pursued with Israel and urges this cooperation to continue and deepen;
> (3) deplores and condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the reprehensible statements and policies of the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran threatening the security and existence of Israel;
> (4) recognizes the tremendous threat posed to the United States, the West, and Israel by the Government of Iran's continuing pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability;
> (5) reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy;
> ...

----------


## Warlord

The fact is Rand would say section 8 gives him an out because he can just vote (and argue) against intervenionism if it came back to congress SHOULD the hypothetical play out. 

So it's still meaningless.

----------


## green73

> It's a real shame that the Ron Paul Institute is sowing the seeds of division here.  Er...


$#@! you.

----------


## supermario21

I still think that the "voting this resolution forces you to vote for authorization" argument is a bit of a stretch. I had no opinion on this, though I leaned no after hearing Graham, McCain, Rubio, Ayotte, and Blumenthal yak about how much of a threat Iran is. Of course, Rand wasn't in the chamber to hear that.

----------


## Warlord

> I still think that the "voting this resolution forces you to vote for authorization" argument is a bit of a stretch. I had no opinion on this, though I leaned no after hearing Graham, McCain, Rubio, Ayotte, and Blumenthal yak about how much of a threat Iran is. Of course, Rand wasn't in the chamber to hear that.


It is a stretch.  He can still argue and vote against any further action IF the hypothetical comes out. This is a non-binding resolution. It means nothing and a senator can't be held to it.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It's a real shame that the Ron Paul Institute is sowing the seeds of division here.  Er...


Oh, you mean the Daniel McAdams article?  Yeah, it's also been picked up and published by the* RON PAUL INSTITUTE FOR PEACE AND PROSPERITY*.

----------


## supermario21

Of course it would be, Daniel McAdams writes most of the articles there.

----------


## cero

> It is a stretch.  He can still argue and vote against any further action IF the hypothetical comes out. This is a non-binding resolution. It means nothing and a senator can't be held to it.


but but but the lewrockwell article said that and I quote "Any Senator hesitating to authorize the US military to join Israel's war would be shown his vote on this resolution and told that he is already on record supporting war in these circumstances. That is how it works on the Hill"

----------


## Warlord

> Oh, you mean the Daniel McAdams article?  Yeah, it's also been picked up and published by the* RON PAUL INSTITUTE FOR PEACE AND PROSPERITY*.


Doesn't mean it's the Gospel. Section 8 does give a senator a big out. Anything comes back to Congress.  If your a senator and dont want intervention you can vote and argue against it.


I've read nearly every resolution they've passed since Iraq in the 90's and this one is a lot weaker.  Doesn't talk about regime change or anything. Fact is this is just bluster and the USG is not going to go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel or anyone else.

----------


## cero

> Oh, you mean the Daniel McAdams article?  Yeah, it's also been picked up and published by the* RON PAUL INSTITUTE FOR PEACE AND PROSPERITY*.


lol at the title for the article "Senate Votes Unanimously Toward War Against Iran"
you gotta be kidding me....
sensationalist crap

----------


## DylanWaco

> $#@! you.


GUYS DANIEL MCADAMS IS CLEARLY CONTROLLED OPPOSITION AGAINST RAND!!!

----------


## Warlord

> but but but the lewrockwell article said that and I quote "Any Senator hesitating to authorize the US military to join Israel's war would be shown his vote on this resolution and told that he is already on record supporting war in these circumstances. That is how it works on the Hill"


Any senator doesn't have to act the way McAdams predicts.

----------


## Brett85

I hope Ron bashes the Senate for voting in favor of this on his Facebook page.  (Not Rand specifically, just every Senator who voted for it.)

----------


## cajuncocoa

> but but but the lewrockwell article said that and I quote "Any Senator hesitating to authorize the US military to join Israel's war would be shown his vote on this resolution and told that he is already on record supporting war in these circumstances. That is how it works on the Hill"


The Ron Paul Institute article had the same language.

----------


## Warlord

> The Ron Paul Institute article had the same language.



As I've explained section 8 is cleverly worded and no senator is bound by this if the hypothetical plays out.

This resolution is just bluster. Get back to me when they start demanding regime change in Iran like they were doing with Iraq in the 90's. That's when they put themselves on a war footing.  This one tells me they have no intention of going to war with Iran and it's just something for Lindsey to grandstand about.

----------


## Brett85

> The Ron Paul Institute article had the same language.


The Ron Paul Institute needs to score this vote in their ratings system, as well as every single Iran sanctions vote.  They shoudn't leave out these kind votes simply for the sake of making sure that some Senators get a perfect score.

----------


## Petar

> As I've explained section 8 is cleverly worded and no senator is bound by this if the hypothetical plays out.
> 
> This resolution is just bluster. Get back to me when they start demanding regime change in Iran like they were doing with Iraq in the 90's. That's when they put themselves on a war footing.  This one tells me they have no intention of going to war with Iran and it's just something for Lindsey to grandstand about.


I hope you are right, but it seems to be cutting it very close at least.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> As I've explained section 8 is cleverly worded and no senator is bound by this if the hypothetical plays out.
> 
> This resolution is just bluster. Get back to me when they start demanding regime change in Iran like they were doing with Iraq in the 90's. That's when they put themselves on a war footing.  This one tells me they have no intention of going to war with Iran and it's just something for Lindsey to grandstand about.


Take it up with the Ron Paul Institute for PEACE and Prosperity.

----------


## cero

> Take it up with the Ron Paul Institute for PEACE and Prosperity.


na he should prob take it up with Ron Paul himself
we all know what happened last time people were writing on behalf of Ron....

----------


## green73

> GUYS DANIEL MCADAMS IS CLEARLY CONTROLLED OPPOSITION AGAINST RAND!!!


Sorry, I must have misunderstood you earlier. ;^)

----------


## cajuncocoa

> na he should prob take it up with Ron Paul himself
> we all know what happened last time people were writing on behalf of Ron....


Do you really believe Ron would support this resolution?

----------


## DylanWaco

> na he should prob take it up with Ron Paul himself
> we all know what happened last time people were writing on behalf of Ron....


Oh man this is rich.  

Daniel McAdams compared to bigots for defending Ron's foreign policy principles publicly.

Rand?  Above criticism because he had to pander to ethnic/religious lobby.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I'm pretty sure losing a "supporter" like you would be a massive boost to his campaign.


Losing FreedomFanatic's vote is certainly a campaign deathblow.  Can Rand win without the Bellevue vote?

----------


## green73

> Do you really believe Ron would support this resolution?


You shut it! Ron Paul lost elections!

----------


## cero

> Do you really believe Ron would support this resolution?


no I agree with you.

but like this guy above me pointed Rand is in it to win it.

----------


## green73

> I'm pretty sure losing a "supporter" like you would be a massive boost to his campaign.


Keep writing off the youth...

----------


## John F Kennedy III

99-0. Who was the no show and why?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Ron would not support that resolution. I hope we aren't actually debating that.

----------


## Warlord

> Do you really believe Ron would support this resolution?


Ron was never in the snake pit in the senate being forced to take a position on trash like this.  

It's pretty obvious though that this resolution is not a warmongering one like the Iraq ones because they would say more clearly their goal is regime change and they don't. Which means they dont want a war with Iran.  This is actually positive for those who value peace.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> no I agree with you.
> 
> but like this guy above me pointed Rand is in it to win it.


To win _what_?  When you have to do things like this in order to win, you're not really winning anything.

----------


## supermario21

I don't care how Ron would have voted (definitely no). I don't even care really that Rand voted yes. He's not losing my support and he's not turning into a neocon. Rand spoke out against the real neocon wet dream (Syria) which is higher up on Obama's and the Congress's priority list. This is just throwing a bone to Israel and Lindsey Graham making himself look tough when it comes to his primary challenge.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Ron would not support that resolution. I hope we aren't actually debating that.


I guess this is an example of that 1% that everyone keeps talking about.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> *Ron was never in the snake pit in the senate being forced to take a position on trash like this.* 
> 
> It's pretty obvious though that this resolution is not a warmongering one like the Iraq ones because they would say more clearly their goal is regime change and they don't. Which means they dont want a war with Iran.  This is actually positive for those who value peace.


If Rand's principles cannot stand up to being in the Senate, how in the hell is he going to manage in the Oval Office?

----------


## green73

> Ron was never in the snake pit in the senate being forced to take a position on trash like this.  
> 
> It's pretty obvious though that this resolution is not a warmongering one like the Iraq ones because they would say more clearly their goal is regime change and they don't. Which means they dont want a war with Iran.  This is actually positive for those who value peace.

----------


## Brett85

> Rand spoke out against the real neocon wet dream (Syria) which is higher up on Obama's and the Congress's priority list.


So it's more important to stop war with Syria than to stop war with Iran?  Why is that?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> 99-0. Who was the no show and why?


I saw in another thread the no show was Frank Lautenberg of NJ...don't know why.

----------


## supermario21

> So it's more important to stop war with Syria than to stop war with Iran?  Why is that?


War with Iran isn't going to happen. If it ever gets close, Rand will vote against an authorization almost for sure considering it would come prematurely. Syria is ongoing. They're not passing phony pep talk resolutions with regard to Syria, they're sending money and weapons. That's a bigger deal.

----------


## Brett85

It may not happen anytime soon, but it seems pretty naive to say that war with Iran won't ever happen.

----------


## Warlord

> So it's more important to stop war with Syria than to stop war with Iran?  Why is that?


War with Iran is not on the agenda. They dont want regime change in Iran. They're not talking about it. They've made up some convoluted hypothetical involving Israel with plenty of get outs. 

Syria meanwhile Obama has said 'Assad must go' i.e the US wants regime change in Syria (notice he's not saying 'Kohemni must go') which is utter madness and yes must be fought against and if you notice Rand is doing just that in the committee the other day fighting against the arming of the so called rebels.

----------


## cero

lol at some of you using Ron to attack Rand.
can't get any more lame than that.

again, this not a vote for war with Iran like the lewrockwell article would like you to believe.
also remember that rand voted 99-1 against preemptive war with Iran.

----------


## supermario21

Watching today's debate showed that the neocons real objective in the present is Syria. Even Rubio when he took the floor spent most of his time ranting about how important it was to arm the rebels. Iran will be a bridge crossed when Lindsey Graham and McCain get there. Rand Paul will likely be against any actual war in Iran, just like he is against any intervention in Syria.

----------


## Warlord

> I saw in another thread the no show was Frank Lautenberg of NJ...don't know why.


He's 90 years old and very ill.

----------


## devil21

> So he puts Israel first like everyone else here?  No thanks...
> 
> Nehanyathu wants to get off our aid but we won't let them, imagine that.  I think Rand Paul officially hates Iran more than Nehanyathu does (Arguably America too, by extension.)


No, it proves that he actually read both resolutions before he voted on them and wasn't going to do something stupid like give AIPAC smear material over a resolution that has no force of law whatsoever.  Do you think Rand is a dumbass that wants to walk into intentional traps like these resolutions?

----------


## Brett85

> No, it proves that he actually read both resolutions before he voted on them and wasn't going to do something stupid like give AIPAC smear material over a resolution that has no force of law whatsoever.  Do you think Rand is a dumbass that wants to walk into intentional traps like these resolutions?


The first AIPAC resolution that Rand voted against had no force of law either.

----------


## devil21

> If Rand's principles cannot stand up to being in the Senate, how in the hell is he going to manage in the Oval Office?


Are you saying that Ron Paul is lying when he says that he and Rand are 99% in agreement?

It's weird watching people compare a 12 term Congressman to a first term Senator when it comes to strategy.

----------


## devil21

> The first AIPAC resolution that Rand voted against had no force of law either.


What makes you think it's an AIPAC resolution?

----------


## Warlord

> The first AIPAC resolution that Rand voted against had no force of law either.


Tsai has explained to you why he voted against that one and he spoke on the senate floor for 12 minutes on why he voted against it but for some reason you refuse to watch or accept it.

This one is much weaker than the last one.

----------


## Brett85

> Are you saying that Ron Paul is lying when he says that he and Rand are 99% in agreement?
> 
> It's weird watching people compare a 12 term Congressman to a first term Senator when it comes to strategy.


Voting isn't "strategy."  You can maybe say that rhetoric and endorsements is part of "strategy," but taking anti liberty votes should be off limits when pursuing any kind of strategy.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> So he puts Israel first like everyone else here?  No thanks...
> 
> Nehanyathu wants to get off our aid but we won't let them, imagine that.  I think Rand Paul officially hates Iran more than Nehanyathu does (Arguably America too, by extension.)


That is complete and utter bull$#@!.  Netanyahu still wants U.S. aid, which is why he is always clamoring for it.  He just doesn't want our troops on his soil.

----------


## Brett85

> Tsai has explained to you why he voted against that one and he spoke on the senate floor for 12 minutes on why he voted against it but for some reason you refuse to watch or accept it.


Right, and that was a better explanation than Devil's claim that Rand simply votes for these kind of resolutions because "they have no force of law."  The fact that this resolution has no force of law is completely meaningless since Rand has voted against other resolutions that also have no force of law.

----------


## Warlord

Here's Rand speaking against the last Iran resolution... the one he voted against

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Keep writing off the youth...


You only represent yourself;  no one else.

----------


## devil21

> Voting isn't "strategy."  You can maybe say that rhetoric and endorsements is part of "strategy," but taking anti liberty votes should be off limits when pursuing any kind of strategy.


Of course it is, particularly when it comes to votes on resolutions that mean nothing.  No action required, no spending, no deployments, no resource allocations, nothing.  If a resolution like today's is offered for strategic purposes (assuming my AIPAC angle is correct), then why not vote strategically in response?  It's clear to me that Rand is playing chess while you're playing checkers.




> Right, and that was a better explanation than Devil's claim that Rand simply votes for these kind of resolutions because "they have no force of law."  The fact that this resolution has no force of law is completely meaningless since Rand has voted against other resolutions that also have no force of law.


Once again you are avoiding my point entirely.  This resolution, imho, was specifically targeted to give ammo to media and pundits to smear Rand and other Senators as being "anti-Israel".  No other reason.  Im pretty sure you're a fan of Israel and intervention on it's behalf so I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Rand LOST my vote.


So leave the Rand Paul forum and move onto your next abomination.  This is a place for supporters and activism, not wedge sowing trolls.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Are you saying that Ron Paul is lying when he says that he and Rand are 99% in agreement?
> 
> It's weird watching people compare a 12 term Congressman to a first term Senator when it comes to strategy.


Lying?  No.  I think he's being diplomatic and a good father.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course it is, particularly when it comes to votes on resolutions that mean nothing.  No action required, no spending, no deployments, no resource allocations, nothing.  If a resolution like today's is offered for strategic purposes (assuming my AIPAC angle is correct), then why not vote strategically in response?  It's clear to me that Rand is playing chess while you're playing checkers.


Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".

----------


## cajuncocoa

> So leave the Rand Paul forum and move onto your next abomination.  This is a place for supporters and activism, not wedge sowing trolls.


I get that Rand is given special treatment in this subforum, but I don't think any subforum should be off-limits to any member here.  Furthermore, when Rand casts an anti-liberty vote such as the one he cast today, it should be open to the criticism it deserves....in this subforum or any other.   Just my opinion.

----------


## devil21

> Lying?  No.  I think he's being diplomatic and a good father.


But that means it's still a lie.  Right?




> Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".


Nice.  Your choices:

1)  Stay purist on everything and guarantee a loss in 2016 after media smears Rand to high hell as an anti-semite, then say hello to Hillary and possible war with Iran regardless.
2)  Recognize that politics is a game and having a chance to win requires making some choices on votes that carry no weight, other than the complaints of the purists that would lose the election anyway if they had it their way.  At least then there's a chance to avoid a war.

----------


## Brett85

> Once again you are avoiding my point entirely.  This resolution, imho, was specifically targeted to give ammo to media and pundits to smear Rand and other Senators as being "anti-Israel".  No other reason.


And like I said, you can say the exact same thing about the other resolution, which Rand voted against.  It seems clear that Rand didn't vote for this resolution for political reasons, but because he supported it.  I'll give him credit for not voting this way for political reasons, because I don't think he did.  If Rand voted according to what would help him politically, he would've voted against confirming Hagel.  I just think that his ideology on foreign policy issues is wrong.  It's nowhere close to the foreign policy Ron advocated.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Of course it is, particularly when it comes to votes on resolutions that mean nothing.  No action required, no spending, no deployments, no resource allocations, nothing.  If a resolution like today's is offered for strategic purposes (assuming my AIPAC angle is correct), then why not vote strategically in response?  It's clear to me that Rand is playing chess while you're playing checkers.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you are avoiding my point entirely.  This resolution, imho, was specifically targeted to give ammo to media and pundits to smear Rand and other Senators as being "anti-Israel".  No other reason.  Im pretty sure you're a fan of Israel and intervention on it's behalf so I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying.


Devil21 understands the way this game is played.

----------


## cero

> Keep writing off the youth...


lmaoo 24 year old here, I'm balls deep into Rand.

----------


## Warlord

> Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".


Iran is a distraction.  The establishment do not want that fight and they made it clear today in that resolution. Regime change isnt even mentioned.

Obama says 'Assad must go'. He's not running round saying 'Ayatolla Kohmeni must go'.  We need to fight against intervention in Syria.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> But that means it's still a lie.  Right?


It's really a meaningless statement since opinions aren't measured quantitatively.

----------


## cero

> Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".


but he voted against preemptive war with Iran....

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".


Rand could murder someone and some here would still make excuses for him.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> lmaoo 24 year old here, *I'm balls deep into Rand.*


TMI.

----------


## ican'tvote

I didn't read this whole thread but I'll just say this.

Rand voted for sanctions on Iran a while ago. If this non-binding resolution is what makes him lose your support, you haven't been paying attention.I'm not disputing the awfulness of this resolution, or making excuses for him voting yes. I'm just saying that he's voted for worse stuff so this crap shouldn't come as a surprise.

Personally, I'd still gladly vote for him but I'm not interested in contributing my time and money like I did for Ron.. Unless I become seriously rich in the next two years.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Rand may well oppose preemptive war, but he just voted for a resolution that justifies it.  
> 
> That's simply not cool, for the same reason that a nonbinding resolution recommending that parents kill their two year old children would still simply not be cool.  And the reason for that is NOT because utilitarianism dictates that 99% of people wouldn't like it, its because its wrong!  And so the same principles apply.  *Man up and vote principle.  Don't vote for Rand Paul.*


Seriously, GTFO of Rand's subforum!!

----------


## klamath

> I get that Rand is given special treatment in this subforum, but I don't think any subforum should be off-limits to any member here.  Furthermore, when Rand casts an anti-liberty vote such as the one he cast today, it should be open to the criticism it deserves....in this subforum or any other.   Just my opinion.


Including attacks on RP in the RPforum?

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I get that Rand is given special treatment in this subforum, but I don't think any subforum should be off-limits to any member here.  Furthermore, when Rand casts an anti-liberty vote such as the one he cast today, it should be open to the criticism it deserves....in this subforum or any other.   Just my opinion.


If you wish to bash Rand join the Daily Paul or Dailykos.  There are plenty of places on the internet to bash, this is the only place where Rand *SUPPORTERS* to brainstorm how to get Rand in the victory column.

----------


## devil21

> And like I said, you can say the exact same thing about the other resolution, which Rand voted against.  It seems clear that Rand didn't vote for this resolution for political reasons, but because he supported it.  I'll give him credit for not voting this way for political reasons, because I don't think he did.  If Rand voted according to what would help him politically, he would've voted against confirming Hagel.  I just think that his ideology on foreign policy issues is wrong.  It's nowhere close to the foreign policy Ron advocated.


THE OTHER RESOLUTION DID NOT EVEN HAVE THE WORD "ISRAEL" IN IT!  Are you dense?

Ron never intended to win but that's for another thread.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> If you wish to bash Rand join the Daily Paul or Dailykos.  There are plenty of places on the internet to bash, this is the only place where Rand *SUPPORTERS* to brainstorm how to get Rand in the victory column.


Daily Kos? LOL

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> Rand could murder someone and some here would still make excuses for him.


Then why post here?  Leave if you don't like it.

----------


## Brett85

> THE OTHER RESOLUTION DID NOT EVEN HAVE THE WORD "ISRAEL" IN IT!  Are you dense?
> 
> Ron never intended to win but that's for another thread.


That doesn't make any difference.  The resolution was still strongly supported by AIPAC; Rand voted against it and was then heavily attacked by AIPAC and the National Democratic Jewish Council.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The thing about that is we usually allow some venting and actual attempts to figure out what is going on when some big event happens (at least unless it is really sensitive timing) even in that person's forum.
> 
> But at the end of the day, this is Rand's forum and it is here to support him, so if your purpose was to condemn Rand continually, rather than just finding out what is going on and reacting in the moment, this would not be the subforum to hang out in.


Have you noticed that he isn't paying attention to you??  And where is the comment about Cajun Cocoa's bull$#@!?

----------


## Brett85

> If you wish to bash Rand join the Daily Paul or Dailykos.  There are plenty of places on the internet to bash, this is the only place where Rand *SUPPORTERS* to brainstorm how to get Rand in the victory column.


There's a difference between being a "Rand supporter" and being someone who thinks that any criticism at all of Rand is off limits.

----------


## tsai3904

> Rand voted for sanctions on Iran a while ago. If this non-binding resolution is what makes him lose your support, you haven't been paying attention.I'm not disputing the awfulness of this resolution, or making excuses for him voting yes. I'm just saying that he's voted for worse stuff so this crap shouldn't come as a surprise.


Yea I agree.  If you are looking at everything from Ron's foreign policy viewpoint, Rand has done stuff worse than voting for this resolution which is why I don't understand why this is a dealbreaker.

----------


## devil21

> I didn't read this whole thread but I'll just say this.
> 
> Rand voted for sanctions on Iran a while ago. If this non-binding resolution is what makes him lose your support, you haven't been paying attention.I'm not disputing the awfulness of this resolution, or making excuses for him voting yes. I'm just saying that he's voted for worse stuff so this crap shouldn't come as a surprise.
> 
> Personally, I'd still gladly vote for him but I'm not interested in contributing my time and money like I did for Ron.. Unless I become seriously rich in the next two years.


Oh here we go again.  Rinse and repeat.  Post the text of the resolution that Rand voted for sanctions.  Did you read the resolution or are you spitting up blogger spin like TC and FF?  I don't mean to attack you since Im already worked up but Im thoroughly sick of people passing off soundbites and blog/comment spin as "fact".  Post the text of the resolution you referenced.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> There's a difference between being a "Rand supporter" and being someone who thinks that any criticism at all of Rand is off limits.


All you do it criticize and sow wedges.  If you don't like the support for Rand here, leave.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Rand may vote for war on Iran and some here would still say he's "playing chess".


Bull$#@!.

----------


## Brett85

> All you do it criticize and sow wedges.  If you don't like the support for Rand here, leave.


I have no problem with support for Rand.  I donated money to him and have no regrets.  I have a problem with people who think that Rand is God and beyond criticism for any vote or statement.

----------


## devil21

> That doesn't make any difference.  The resolution was still strongly supported by AIPAC; Rand voted against it and was then heavily attacked by AIPAC and the National Democratic Jewish Council.


So are you saying that any resolution presented in Congress regarding Iran is an AIPAC smear trap?

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Have you noticed that he isn't paying attention to you??  And where is the comment about Cajun Cocoa's bull$#@!?


What "bull$#@!" LE?  You're getting your granny panties in a bunch again, but there is nothing I've said in the thread that is "bull$#@!".

----------


## devil21

About time to stop feeding the trolls for the night.  Im off to the gym.

----------


## Brett85

> So are you saying that any resolution presented in Congress regarding Iran is an AIPAC smear trap?


Every resolution in Congress that is hawkish towards Iran is supported by AIPAC.  That is well known.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> I have no problem with support for Rand.  I donated money to him and have no regrets.  I have a problem with people who think that Rand is God and beyond criticism for any vote or statement.


Devil21 has schooled you in this entire thread, yet you still persist.

----------


## devil21

One last time.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I guess the Ron Paul Institute must be driving wedges.  Good night!

----------


## klamath

> Yea I agree.  If you are looking at everything from Ron's foreign policy viewpoint, Rand has done stuff worse than voting for this resolution which is why I don't understand why this is a dealbreaker.


 Every vote of Rands is a deal breaker for most of these people but they keep coming back after every vote they don't like and restating that *this is* the deal breaker. DON"T VOTE FOR NEOCON RAND! ...in Rand's subforum....

----------


## Brett85

> Every vote of Rands is a deal breaker for most of these people but they keep coming back after every vote they don't like and restating that *this is* the deal breaker. DON"T VOTE FOR NEOCON RAND! ...in Rand's subforum....


And vice versa, some people here will blindly defend Rand no matter what he does.  They think that any criticism at all of him is off limits.  I've praised Rand for a lot of things.  I praised him yesterday for what he said about Apple.  I praised him for his 99-1 vote on the last Iran resolution.  I was going to praise him if he voted against this resolution as well.  I praised his filibuster.  But the fact that I criticize one or two of his votes or one or two of his statements means that I'm some kind of "Rand hater" who should stay off his forum.  It's just ridiculous.  Some of you are Rand cultists, not Rand supporters.

----------


## TheGrinch

Wow, I regret having read this whole thread. That's all I'm gonna say on that...

Certainly disappointing at it's surface, but like a reasonable human being I will see his explanation and what happens from here.

This is indeed another red flag, but given his previous and recent stances favoring non-intervention, I'm at least hoping and waiting for a reasonable explanation.  If not, I'll be disappointed.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> I saw in another thread the no show was Frank Lautenberg of NJ...don't know why.


So Rand voted for this? GO LIBERTY!

----------


## tsai3904

> But the fact that I criticize one or two of his votes or one or two of his statements means that I'm some kind of "Rand hater" who should stay off his forum.  It's just ridiculous.  Some of you are Rand cultists, not Rand supporters.


Criticism is fine but there has been a lot of exaggerations of what Rand said or what Rand voted for.

The whole deal with the drug war was based on a reporter's take of what he heard without any quotes from Rand.  Yet, a lot of people were going around claiming Rand supports the drug war which is far from the truth since he doesn't want to throw people in jail and he supports states deciding to legalize pot.

Same with Rand's drones comments.  There were people here who literally thought Rand supported killing a robber coming out of a liquor store for the SOLE reason of holding a gun and cash.  Criticism of his position that drones can be used in imminent threat situations is fine but when people go around claiming that Rand supports killing people without due process is just too much.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> War with Iran isn't going to happen. If it ever gets close, Rand will vote against an authorization almost for sure considering it would come prematurely. Syria is ongoing. They're not passing phony pep talk resolutions with regard to Syria, they're sending money and weapons. That's a bigger deal.


How can you state as fact that war with Iran won't happen?

----------


## Brett85

> Same with Rand's drones comments.  There were people here who literally thought Rand supported killing a robber coming out of a liquor store for the SOLE reason of holding a gun and cash.  Criticism of his position that drones can be used in imminent threat situations is fine but when people go around claiming that Rand supports killing people without due process is just too much.


I defended him on that one.  I said that he probably just misspoke.  I also defended his endorsement of Romney.  I'm not one of the people who will only bash Rand and never give him any credit for anything or never defend him.

----------


## klamath

> And vice versa, some people here will blindly defend Rand no matter what he does.  They think that any criticism at all of him is off limits.  I've praised Rand for a lot of things.  I praised him yesterday for what he said about Apple.  I praised him for his 99-1 vote on the last Iran resolution.  I was going to praise him if he voted against this resolution as well.  I praised his filibuster.  But the fact that I criticize one or two of his votes or one or two of his statements means that I'm some kind of "Rand hater" who should stay off his forum.  It's just ridiculous.  Some of you are Rand cultists, not Rand supporters.


 Did I name you?  The RP cultism is 100,000% more than rand cultism ever could think of being. I could recognize the Ron cultism from the very beginning but I let it go. I am not a cult follower of either one but if I am overall supporting the man I keep my criticisms down as soon enough the anti Ron anti Rand forces will be doing it. I actually have a lot of issues with RP's lying and being hypocritical (I can hear the collective intake of breath already. BLASPHEMY!) and I would be banned if I carried on continually about them. In fact I was banned because I disagreed with others on strategy after RP suspended his campaign. You better be goddamned sure if I was hammering the hell out of RP himself I would have been banned.

----------


## Brett85

> I am not a cult follower of either one but if I am overall supporting the man I keep my criticisms down.


Yeah, I should try to keep it to a minimum as well.  It's just that this vote was extremely disappointing to me.  I view this resolution as nothing more than utter garbage.  I just wish we had at least one Senator who would get on the Senate floor and speak out against this kind of stuff.

----------


## ican'tvote

> Oh here we go again.  Rinse and repeat.  Post the text of the resolution that Rand voted for sanctions.  Did you read the resolution or are you spitting up blogger spin like TC and FF?  I don't mean to attack you since Im already worked up but Im thoroughly sick of people passing off soundbites and blog/comment spin as "fact".  Post the text of the resolution you referenced.


Main amendment page (the sanctions were an amendment to the 2013 NDAA)
Text of the amendment.
Here's how he voted.

Here's a small sample in case you're on a device that doesn't let you view links.




> SEC. 1255. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE, SUPPLY, OR TRANSFER OF CERTAIN MATERIALS TO OR FROM IRAN.
> 
>     (a) Sale, Supply, or Transfer of Certain Materials.--The President shall impose 5 or more of the sanctions described in section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) with respect to a person if the President determines that the person knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, sells, supplies, or transfers, directly or indirectly, to or from Iran--
> 
>     (1) a precious metal;
> 
>     (2) a material described in subsection (c) determined pursuant to subsection (d)(1) to be used by Iran as described in that subsection;
> 
>     (3) any other material described in subsection (c)

----------


## klamath

> Yeah, I should try to keep it to a minimum as well.  It's just that this vote was extremely disappointing to me.  I view this resolution as nothing more than utter garbage.  I just wish we had at least one Senator who would get on the Senate floor and speak out against this kind of stuff.


I don't like it either. If Rand votes for a AUMF against Iran then I would be done as far as supporting him for president but then again it depends on who he is running against as I strongly supported Ron after he voted for an AUMF against the world.

----------


## sailingaway

> I don't like it either. If Rand votes for a AUMF against Iran then I would be done as far as supporting him for president but then again it depends on who he is running against as I strongly supported Ron after he voted for an AUMF against the world.


cut that out. It was not against the world but only those who planned 9/11, from the text itself, and as soon as there were rumblings it might be interpreted differently Ron  and others sponsored a clarification that it never meant more than that or went beyond Afghanistan and it PASSED in the House. Pelosi took it out in conference. The House knew it was never supposed to mean that, and your continually raising this as if you hadn't known all this from many iterations of this argument before is specious.

----------


## surf

warmonger. sanctions are acts of war. Rand is painting himself as a typical republicrat warmonger.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> cut that out. It was not against the world but only those who planned 9/11, from the text itself, and as soon as there were rumblings it might be interpreted differently Ron  and others sponsored a clarification that it never meant more than that or went beyond Afghanistan and it PASSED in the House. Pelosi took it out in conference. The House knew it was never supposed to mean that, and your continually raising this as if you hadn't known all this from many iterations of this argument before is specious.


I've told him this at least five times. He knows. He is incapable of defending Rand Paul without putting down Ron Paul. Oh how far we've come.

----------


## compromise

Excellent move by Rand. This eliminates any accusations that he's anti-Israel in 2016.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> Excellent move by Rand. This eliminates any accusations that he's anti-Israel in 2016.


How so? And why is that important?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

Oh holy $#@! you have Sarah Palin as a liberty pick. That's all I really needed to know.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Does it not bother anyone that Lindsey Graham was the main proponent of this resolution and gave a speech on the Senate floor praising this resolution while using all kinds of blood thirsty rhetoric?


Apparently not.  And the comparison of the Afghanistan AUMF with a hypothetical one against Iran is ridiculous.  I don't like the Afghan AUMF but at least that was SUPPOSED to be limited to terrorists.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Excellent move by Rand. This eliminates any accusations that he's anti-Israel in 2016.


Because that's the most important consideration

All hail the zionists...


Seriously, these idiots think EVERYTHING is "Anti-Israel."

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Oh holy $#@! you have Sarah Palin as a liberty pick. That's all I really needed to know.


 smh

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Excellent move by Rand. This eliminates any accusations that he's anti-Israel in 2016.


by allowing himself to basically be blackmailed by AIPAC into forever doing Israel's bidding.

----------


## Brett85

> Apparently not.  And the comparison of the Afghanistan AUMF with a hypothetical one against Iran is ridiculous.  I don't like the Afghan AUMF but at least that was SUPPOSED to be limited to terrorists.


Yeah, the war in Afghanistan was originally a defensive war.  Comparing a war that was the result of an attack on our soil to a preemptive war against a country that never attacked us is pretty ridiculous.

----------


## klamath

> cut that out. It was not against the world but only those who planned 9/11, from the text itself, and as soon as there were rumblings it might be interpreted differently Ron  and others sponsored a clarification that it never meant more than that or went beyond Afghanistan and it PASSED in the House. Pelosi took it out in conference. The House knew it was never supposed to mean that, and your continually raising this as if you hadn't known all this from many iterations of this argument before is specious.


 ARE you going to ban me if I keep mentioning it?

----------


## pcosmar

> Yeah, the war in Afghanistan was originally a defensive war.  Comparing a war that was the result of an attack on our soil to a preemptive war against a country that never attacked us is pretty ridiculous.


NO, It was not, and it never was at all..

You really need to divest yourself of that delusion.
1. The FBI could find absolutely NO connection between Osama Bin Ladin and 9/11
2. All of the "known actors' were from elsewhere,, and had trained in the US longer than in Afghanistan.
3. Osama was likely dead before the first troops arrived in Afghanistan.
4, Afghanistan Government (Taliban) offered to turn over Bin Ladin if presented with any evidence of his involvement. 

Afghanistan was never a threat of any kind to the US. Never. At any time or in any way.

----------


## pcosmar

> ARE you going to ban me if I keep mentioning it?


Not likely,,

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> by allowing himself to basically be blackmailed by AIPAC into forever doing Israel's bidding.


Yeah and that isn't somebody that anyone should vote for.

----------


## klamath

> Yeah, the war in Afghanistan was originally a defensive war.  Comparing a war that was the result of an attack on our soil to a preemptive war against a country that never attacked us is pretty ridiculous.


Afganistan *NEVER* attacked us. The only thing Afganistan did is refuse to turn over OBL. The AUMF was never just about Afganistan. It is a wide open declaration that specifically doesn't limit it to Afganistan. OBL was a Saudi. I do agree that at this point a vote for a AUMF against Iran after what we know today about the uselessness of war would be a bigger mistake. Rand has NOT voted for a AUMF against Iran however.

----------


## klamath

> Apparently not.  And the comparison of the Afghanistan AUMF with a hypothetical one against Iran is ridiculous.  I don't like the Afghan AUMF but at least that was SUPPOSED to be limited to terrorists.


 There is NO such thing as an Afgan AUMF. The AUMF that passed is consistently used and oked by courts for any action anywhere in the world.




> That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

----------


## devil21

> by allowing himself to basically be blackmailed by AIPAC into forever doing Israel's bidding.


Have you ever talked to someone that spouted absolute bull$#@! (political or otherwise) but you decided it was in you and everyone around's best interest at that moment to just smile, nod, and go on your way because it wasn't a battle you should fight at that exact moment?  

Think about it.

(Im glad you are understanding better the motivations behind some of Rand's moves lately.  You may not agree with it, and that's a-ok, but understanding the reasons is what I'm concerned with.  Too many kneejerk reactions on Rand's rhetoric and votes that are not considering the "why".)

----------


## devil21

> Because that's the most important consideration
> 
> All hail the zionists...
> 
> 
> Seriously, these idiots think EVERYTHING is "Anti-Israel."


Spoken like a true firster.

----------


## sailingaway

> Afganistan *NEVER* attacked us. The only thing Afganistan did is refuse to turn over OBL. The AUMF was never just about Afganistan. It is a wide open declaration that specifically doesn't limit it to Afganistan. OBL was a Saudi. I do agree that at this point a vote for a AUMF against Iran after what we know today about the uselessness of war would be a bigger mistake. Rand has NOT voted for a AUMF against Iran however.


it specifically limited it to those who caused 9/11. those words are in it.  


> *planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001*


 You know this, I posted the text previously, and that the House 'clarified' it on Ron's bill, but Pelosi took the clarification out.  YOu just put this in to get threads moved because you know it will start a fight.  It doesn't win you supporters and drives people into camps against your position.  

Poor tactic.

----------

