Recent content by DylanWaco

I understand you have probably reached a private arrangement with his estate, but roughly speaking how much do you pay a year for your use of Captain Lou Albano's name?

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that Graham and McCain want to use aid as a weapon to further U.S. imperial interests. I understand it's a reversal of their position, but the place they are coming from and the destination they have in mind has not changed at all.

Jack didn't "apply" to work with Rand. He was approached when someone else decided he didn't want to help Rand with his book. Rand knew about Jack's "history" from day one.

John is a very nice guy, but he's the most extreme fair tax fetishist I've ever met. I've never even been able to get him to talk about any other issues of note, including in sit down meetings with candidates. But I'd definitely rather hang out with him then the average GOPer around here so...

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.

GUYS DANIEL MCADAMS IS CLEARLY CONTROLLED OPPOSITION AGAINST RAND!!!

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

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

The AIPAC bit has to be consistent or it needs to be retired. You can't argue "AIPAC would have lost there shit 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...

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.

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...

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...

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.

Then he's fucked because the previous 1 v. 99 vote he cast on the same issue was an AIPAC special.

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