Just got this from WarIsACrime.org - Get Rand to Sign on

[Razmear]

There are currently no Republican or Democrat Senate candidates who have signed on to this, only some Greens and one Libertarian.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/caws

I think Rand and Ron would both agree with the following statement:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans over $1 trillion in direct costs, and over $3 trillion altogether.

At a time when our national debt exceeds $13 trillion, we can no longer afford these wars.

It's time for Congress to reject any funding except to bring all our troops safely home.

SIGNED BY CANDIDATES AND ORGANIZATIONS:


---

Here is the text of the email that was sent out:


WarIsACrime.org


46 Congressional Candidates Oppose War Funding

Forty-six congressional candidates and 17 activist organizations released a statement on Monday opposing any more funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and inviting more candidates, incumbents, and organizations to sign on. The 46 candidates include 16 Libertarians, 15 Democrats, 14 Greens, and 1 Independent. They do not all agree with each other on many topics, including their reasons for opposing war spending. But they all back this short statement:

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost Americans over $1 trillion in direct costs, and over $3 trillion altogether. At a time when our national debt exceeds $13 trillion, we can no longer afford these wars. It's time for Congress to reject any funding except to bring all our troops safely home."

This announcement comes just as Congress is set to vote on whether to spend another $33.5 billion in an off-the-books "emergency" supplemental spending bill to escalate a war in Afghanistan that polls show a majority of Americans opposes.

Ask congress members, candidates, and organizations to sign onto the Coalition Against War Spending at
http://warisacrime.org/caws

When you call your congress member at (202) 224-3121 let them know that they can vote against another $33.5 billion to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and vote against it no matter how many good things are packaged into the same bill, or you will vote against them in November.

Keep track of where your congress member stands at
http://defundwar.org

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Not gonna happen

"War is a crime" suggests pacifism

Rand isn't a pacifist

 

[BuddyRey]

Not gonna happen

"War is a crime" suggests pacifism

Rand isn't a pacifist

Suggesting that it may not be entirely moral to indiscriminately bomb the daylights out of every unpronounceable country on a map is hardly an endorsement of pacifism.

Actually, maybe you're right...war isn't a crime. It's an atrocity.

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

No way does he need to sign something like that during this campaign.

 

[TruthisTreason]

Find out more @

http://www.howtohelpRandPaulloseanelection.com

 

[AJ Antimony]

See, doing something like this is stupid because we all know Rand knows this information already. This type of shit is for candidates nobody knows about.

Signing such a thing in a typical Republican/neoconservative state will do nothing but majorly hurt Rand. Imagine the CRA backlash times 50.

Your idea is great if your plan is to EMBARRASSINGLY LOSE the election for Rand Paul.

Not to be a complete jerk, but I'm really surprised when I see a RPF member like yourself, with thousands of posts, whose been here for 3 years, and yet still has no idea whatsoever about how to actually win an election. Like it or not, Rand has to talk mostly like a typical Republican to win in a Republican state.

 

[nayjevin]

'the CRA backlash' is good for liberty. blowback.

 

[Depressed Liberator]

Politically, I hope Rand doesn't sign this to appear to be a pacifist. However, I've been told that I'm a pacifistic for simply believing we must only go to war if we are attacked. I hope Rand is like that even if he pressured from from his party and his reelection to do otherwise.

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

See, doing something like this is stupid because we all know Rand knows this information already. This type of shit is for candidates nobody knows about.

Signing such a thing in a typical Republican/neoconservative state will do nothing but majorly hurt Rand. Imagine the CRA backlash times 50.

Your idea is great if your plan is to EMBARRASSINGLY LOSE the election for Rand Paul.

Not to be a complete jerk, but I'm really surprised when I see a RPF member like yourself, with thousands of posts, whose been here for 3 years, and yet still has no idea whatsoever about how to actually win an election. Like it or not, Rand has to talk mostly like a typical Republican to win in a Republican state.

Thank you!! Amazing isn't it - how ignorant some people on here are despite spending so much time here? (shaking my head)

 

[Razmear]

Well pardon my ignorance, but if Rand will not state that he is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will not work towards abolishing the Fed, then he is not worthy of my support, nor the support of those who joined the Ron Paul Revolution specifically for those issues.

The cost of the wars is what is tanking our economy, not the Mexicans sneaking over the border to clean hotel rooms and pick fruit.

I'm almost ashamed to be part of this forum anymore with all the Glen Beck loving, immigrant bashing, Palin pandering BS I've seen here lately.

eb

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

Well pardon my ignorance, but if Rand will not state that he is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and will not work towards abolishing the Fed, then he is not worthy of my support, nor the support of those who joined the Ron Paul Revolution specifically for those issues.

The cost of the wars is what is tanking our economy, not the Mexicans sneaking over the border to clean hotel rooms and pick fruit.

I'm almost ashamed to be part of this forum anymore with all the Glen Beck loving, immigrant bashing, Palin pandering BS I've seen here lately.

eb

News flash, kid. We're trying to win an election here. If you want to be pure move to the jungle and live off of nuts and greens and build a hut out of palm leaves. Over here we're trying to win so we can really have a voice and make things happen. We will not get that seat with your strategy. PERIOD. Your strategy is a losing strategy. Playing the game long enough to get a foot in the door is a winning strategy. Get it? Your purist strategy is a loser. Your strategy results in a loss in the real world. That's the unfortunate reality. During campaign you've either gotta suck it up or get out of the way with the hippie sounding BS. People don't vote for hippies. Sorry.

 

[nayjevin]

The cost of the wars is what is tanking our economy, not the Mexicans sneaking over the border to clean hotel rooms and pick fruit.

Oh that's obvious. But Kentucky voters don't think so. I feel you were unduly attacked for your post, but I feel your characterization of the forum lately is off base.

Look there is nothing wrong with feeling there is no good political campaign but one which takes every opportunity to bring up core issues, no matter how controversial.

But there are many who believe this political angle has merit. Ron Paul is one of them. Rand's race will show me whether it does. I don't assume I know. I want to see.

I feel like I'm seeing many folks using a litmus test for candidates that would exclude even those who claim to be voluntaryists. Because there are voluntaryists running for office right now, and they are not running around teaching anarcho-capitalism.

There's a phase in the growth of a libertyfighter which is characterized by an intense desire to defend first principles. This is because political philosophy, at its logical conclusion, is really quite simple. Tax is theft. Government is force. All these statements that don't cut right to the root of that issue seem like fluff.

But for me, after that phase came a greater understanding. Perhaps it's best explained by this question:

If you were at Daily Kos, trying to teach Libertarianism, would you start a thread with the title, Libertarian is The Only Logical Position?

It would draw the hairs up on the back of the neck immediately. It would result in increased difficulty to achieve successful communication of ideas.

So, even though there is no compromising on principles, there are various approaches with different results. And this can be empirically proven.

1st, define the goal. Then, evaluate the approach.

Do the ends justify the means? No. But, there are approaches which will be more effective than others. I don't want a dishonest or immoral approach.

But as of yet, I have not seen a single lie from Rand Paul.

 

[Depressed Liberator]

News flash, kid. We're trying to win an election here. If you want to be pure move to the jungle and live off of nuts and greens and build a hut out of palm leaves. Over here we're trying to win so we can really have a voice and make things happen. We will not get that seat with your strategy. PERIOD. Your strategy is a losing strategy. Playing the game long enough to get a foot in the door is a winning strategy. Get it? Your purist strategy is a loser. Your strategy results in a loss in the real world. That's the unfortunate reality. During campaign you've either gotta suck it up or get out of the way with the hippie sounding BS. People don't vote for hippies. Sorry.

the fuck is this shit

 

[nayjevin]

Razmear is cool as shit, I met him in Kansas City. Rand is also very kind and thoughtful, met him in New Hampshire.

Tensions are high right now! We're all emotionally invested in this thing. But hey, whateva. I'mma go hippie out for a while.

 

[Razmear]

Razmear is cool as shit, I met him in Kansas City. Rand is also very kind and thoughtful, met him in New Hampshire.

Tensions are high right now! We're all emotionally invested in this thing. But hey, whateva. I'mma go hippie out for a while.

I appreciate the kind words, but I've never been to Kansas City, perhaps we met in Spartanburg or elsewhere tho.

I'll admit to going a bit overboard in bashing the forum, but TCL pissed me off a bit, ya know.
If I wanted another pol who said one thing to get elected then did another when he got in office, well I've got thousands of them to choose from. Ron Paul was the first honest politician I've had the pleasure to meet, and from what I'm seeing of Rand's positions, he is not measuring up to his father's legacy.

I read his blurb on National Defense and it does not inspire my inner hippie very much.

eb

 

[nayjevin]

Haha sorry, yup, thought you were Exponent, sorry bout that.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

News flash, kid. We're trying to win an election here. If you want to be pure move to the jungle and live off of nuts and greens and build a hut out of palm leaves. Over here we're trying to win so we can really have a voice and make things happen. We will not get that seat with your strategy. PERIOD. Your strategy is a losing strategy. Playing the game long enough to get a foot in the door is a winning strategy. Get it? Your purist strategy is a loser. Your strategy results in a loss in the real world. That's the unfortunate reality. During campaign you've either gotta suck it up or get out of the way with the hippie sounding BS. People don't vote for hippies. Sorry.

Seriously shut the fuck up. Go tell Elbridge Gerry he was a hippie for denouncing standing armies and calling for their abolition. Go tell Patrick Henry, he was a hippie for being a staunch non-interventionist. Go tell the men at Lexington and Concord they were hippies for refusing to fire unless fired upon. Go tell the Anti-War Republicans who were against WWI and WWII that they were hippies. Go fuck off and read the speeches of Elbridge Gerry.

Newsflash: If I wanted a spineless schmuck who destroys liberty I have a choice of 500+ in DC.

I wonder how long before the more principled around here give up with electoral politics because it destroys everything you believe in (or supposedly believe in).

But, anyways, rah-rah red team some more. (Gotta court Palin, Levin, Hannity, and the rest of the lot' o' tyrants)

 

[TheConstitutionLives]

Tensions are high but i have faith that Rand is different bc of genetics. I give him the benefit of the doubt. I dont need him to be his father during a campaign bc it will lose. If rand hadve been pure during the primary he wouldve been smoked. Thats just the way it is. Hell even Ron took fake positions on immigration during the prez elections. U gotta have some faith. Rand isnt a typical politician. U know that when youve heard him speak te past 3 years. And when he modifies his message to be more electable people here have a hissy and its unwarranted, in my strong opinion.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Tensions are high but i have faith that Rand is different bc of genetics. I give him the benefit of the doubt. I dont need him to be his father during a campaign bc it will lose. If rand hadve been pure during the primary he wouldve been smoked. Thats just the way it is. Hell even Ron took fake positions on immigration during the prez elections. U gotta have some faith. Rand isnt a typical politician. U know that when youve heard him speak te past 3 years. And when he modifies his message to be more electable people here have a hissy and its unwarranted, in my strong opinion.

I guess either yours, or my position will be validated in the next 3 years. I have no qualms on the side to bet on if it came to that. One need only look at Howard Buffet, and then his son Warren Buffet to understand that like father like son is not a truism.

I could very well be wrong, but I doubt it. Rand has not expressed a position that is Anti-Drug war, Pro-Legalization. Has not expressed an Anti-War non-interventionist Foreign Policy, and has not expressed an End the Fed position (Or for that matter does not want to abolish the income tax!). Reducing the budget by 20% isn't going to stop whats coming. The only way to stop what is headed our way is only through radicalism. A radicalism, that promotes a consistent ideology to lead the way back to liberty, and freedom. I do not see this in Rand. Of our candidates the best is I believe Adam Kokesh. I wish Rand would be like Adam.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Do some of you really think we should run candidates on 100% libertarian platforms, knowing they will not break 5%? Or avoid politics altogether and just read Mises.org all day?

We know libertarianism/paleoconservatism is the right philosophy, but that doesn't mean much until we actually have the power to change things. We need to build coalitions for our more popular ideas and once our candidates have the benefits of incumbency like Ron Paul, they can and should act radically to advance our ideals.