Justin Raimondo, withdrawing support for Rand over Iran fiasco

Rand won't embrace the big money donors and he won't embrace his base which is in large part libertarians sick of the warfare state. He'd better figure out something. I'm still optimistic that he hasn't sold out on this...that he's playing politics. But the "True Believers" are having none of it anymore. Raimondo is very much one of them, and I respect his consistancy. Very sad if Rand fails because he miscalculated.
 
Apparently Raimondo is in favor of an entangling alliance with Iran then. This deal forces our government to protect Iran's nuclear program from attack from other countries, which essentially means that we've entered into yet another entangling alliance that forces us to come to Iran's defense when they get attacked.
 
Brett85 said:
Apparently Raimondo is in favor of an entangling alliance with Iran then. This deal forces our government to protect Iran's nuclear program from attack from other countries, which essentially means that we've entered into yet another entangling alliance that forces us to come to Iran's defense when they get attacked.
Click to expand...

I think Raimondo's biggest issue is this.

“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true.” - Rand Paul quoting the Ayatollah
Click to expand...

Here’s the entire quote:
“The Americans say they stopped Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. They know it’s not true. We had a fatwa, declaring nuclear weapons to be religiously forbidden. It had nothing to do with the nuclear talks.”
Click to expand...


Very disturbing. Think about how people around here go apeshit when others take them out of context.
 
I think he totally didnt listen and just got upset and lost his mind.

Even if you use the FULL quote he lists, it does not change rand's point and stance one bit.

WE were told the deal, by the white house, is stopping Iran's nuke program. This is why we were giving them stuff back.

IF the first part of the quote Rand used or the full quote, is true from Iran's side....then we gave stuff back and are getting NOTHING in return.

Typically we would call this getting bent over a barrel with no lube.

Thus, Rand's point remains just as true with or without the full quote. We gave up stuff on our side, and according to them, they gave up nothing.
 
Todd said:
I think Raimondo's biggest issue is this.



Here’s the entire quote:



Very disturbing. Think about how people around here go apeshit when others take them out of context.
Click to expand...

the point is, the half quote or full quote doesnt change paul's concern and stance and makes no difference. Its a classic case of someone not listening.
 
why is a nuclear Iran any different than a nuclear North Korea, a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear Saudi, a nuclear Turkey, ? only Israel?
 
cindy25 said:
why is a nuclear Iran any different than a nuclear North Korea, a nuclear Pakistan, a nuclear Saudi, a nuclear Turkey, ? only Israel?
Click to expand...

pretty much. And Iran is the "big dog" and doesnt have China backing them up like North Korea.
 
65fastback2+2 said:
the point is, the half quote or full quote doesnt change paul's concern and stance and makes no difference. Its a classic case of someone not listening.
Click to expand...


I once heard a pastor preach that Isaiah 53 stated "There is no God" and that people had used that to quote out of context. He reminded people that the first part of that "The Fool says in his heart...there is no God".

Big F'ing difference.

I'm on Rands side. But I also can be "objective". You can spin the full/half/quote malarky all you want, but if it's true it's called a "lie". I don't have any idea what Rand was trying to do with quoting it out of context. But he did.
 
Todd said:
I once heard a pastor preach that Isaiah 53 stated "There is no God" and that people had used that to quote out of context. He reminded people that the first part of that "The Fool says in his heart...there is no God".

Big F'ing difference.

I'm on Rands side. But I also can be "objective". You can spin the full/half/quote malarky all you want, but if it's true it's called a "lie". I don't have any idea what Rand was trying to do with quoting it out of context. But he did.
Click to expand...

Because the whole context wasnt necessary for discussion. He didnt cite the ayatollah's huge speech word for word either...nor hold a rifle at hand like he did.

We live in a day and age where you try to get rid of everything unnecessary to keep brevity.

I'll use your idea of Isaiah 53...tell me if these are hugely different.

"There is a God and He is real"

"Everyone says there is a God and He is real"

Cutting out the first part makes no hill of beans difference.

You would be SPOT ON, IF the rest of the quote changed the meaning of the part used, but it did not.
 
65fastback2+2 said:
Even if you use the FULL quote he lists, it does not change rand's point and stance one bit.

WE were told the deal, by the white house, is stopping Iran's nuke program. This is why we were giving them stuff back.
Click to expand...

Iran had, has and will continue to have a nuclear power program. This deal does not "stop" that - and anyone who thought that it does is a fool who hasn't been paying any attention. What the deal does not "stop" is Iran's nuclear weapons program - and it doesn't stop it because Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. That was Khamenei's entire point, which Rand deliberately elided in order to make it sound like Khamenei meant something he manifestly did not mean.

65fastback2+2 said:
Typically we would call this getting bent over a barrel with no lube.
Click to expand...

Iran is the one "getting bent over." In order to achieve relief from sanctions that "we" had no right imposing on them in the first place, they have agreed to the most draconian inspection and verification regime for any domestic nuclear power program in history - despite the fact that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (with which Iran has NEVER been found to be in violation), Iran is fully entitled to a nuclear power program free of the many restrictions that this "Iran deal" will impose upon them. The notion that Iran is somehow "getting away" with something - let alone that it is getting "something for nothing" - is grotesquely absurd.

65fastback2+2 said:
IF the first part of the quote Rand used or the full quote, is true from Iran's side....then we gave stuff back and are getting NOTHING in return.

[...]

Thus, Rand's point remains just as true with or without the full quote. We gave up stuff on our side, and according to them, they gave up nothing.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. The only things "we gave up ... on our side" were things (such as sanctions) that "we" had no business imposing in the first place.

And Khamenei didn't say that Iran "gave up nothing" (anyone familiar with the details of the deal who thinks Iran "gave up nothing" is full of crap).

Khamenei said America didn't make Iran give up trying to make nuclear weapons because Iran wasn't trying to make any nuclear weapons in the first place.

I am amazed at the lengths some people will go to in order to excuse Rand's clear misrepresentation of Khamenei's words ...
 
Occam's Banana said:
Iran had, has and will continue to have a nuclear power program. This deal does not "stop" that - and anyone who thought that it does is a fool who hasn't been paying any attention. What the deal does not "stop" is Iran's nuclear weapons program - and it doesn't stop it because Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. That was Khamenei's entire point, which Rand deliberately elided in order to make it sound like Khamenei meant something he manifestly did not mean.



Iran is the one "getting bent over." In order to achieve relief from sanctions that "we" had no right imposing on them in the first place, they have agreed to the most draconian inspection and verification regime for any domestic nuclear power program in history - despite the fact that as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (with which Iran has NEVER been found to be in violation), Iran is fully entitled to a nuclear power program free of the many restrictions that this "Iran deal" will impose upon them. The notion that Iran is somehow "getting away" with something - let alone that it is getting "something for nothing" - is grotesquely absurd.



Bullshit. The only things "we gave up ... on our side" were things (such as sanctions) that "we" had no business imposing in the first place.

And Khamenei didn't say that Iran "gave up nothing" (anyone familiar with the details of the deal who thinks Iran "gave up nothing" is full of crap).

Khamenei said America didn't make Iran give up trying to make nuclear weapons because Iran wasn't trying to make any nuclear weapons in the first place.

I am amazed at the lengths some people will go to in order to excuse Rand's clear misrepresentation of Khamenei's words ...
Click to expand...

You are COMPLETELY overlooking stuff here and falling for the easy thought.

The US Government TOLD US that Iran is making nuclear weapons.

Iran has said they are NOT making nuclear weapons.

So when Rand looks John Kerry point blank in the eye and says "Iran said the agreement you made had nothing to do with anything" (paraphrased) he is PRESSING on Kerry!

The question has 2 responses:

1) Iran is lying.

If Iran is lying...Paul's verbally stated point is why would you (kerry and Obama) trust someone in an agreement that is lying to you.

or

2) The US government is lying to us.

If the government is lying to us, then Kerry on up to Obama should be escorted out of office and fired.

THAT is what Rand is pushing on....someone is lying here, and either way, Kerry and Obama screwed up!


​That is why Kerry had to flim flam around on his answer and not answer Paul. Because he couldnt answer it without putting himself on the chopping block.
 
65fastback2+2 said:
You are COMPLETELY overlooking stuff here and falling for the easy thought.

The US Government TOLD US that Iran is making nuclear weapons.

Iran has said they are NOT making nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Is the CIA the U.S. government? Because they don't see the Iranian weapons program either.

And as for Raimondo, he hasn't flipped at all. He pretended to support a libertarian in 2008, then threw him under the bus. He pretended to support a libertarian in 2012, then threw him under the bus. The only difference this year is that he's peaking a mite early.
 
I called this months ago.... no one cares because JR is a non-factor that no one knows about or cares about. He is also emotionally unstable and very fickle so this was a foregone conclusion. He will probably change his mind another couple of times between now and the election.
 
acptulsa said:
Is the CIA the U.S. government? Because they don't see the Iranian weapons program either.

And as for Raimondo, he hasn't flipped at all. He pretended to support a libertarian in 2008, then threw him under the bus. He pretended to support a libertarian in 2012, then threw him under the bus. The only difference this year is that he's peaking a mite early.
Click to expand...

looks like the IAEA has said in the past they were pursuing weapons as late as 2003, and then researching them again in 2007: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

If they are against their religion...did their religion change?

Again...just more reason I dont trust Iran the same as our own Gov.
 
That wiki article doesn't say that there was proof of anything, but is speculation, and is, perhaps, misleading.

But, it does discuss the U.S. antagonizing since the 1979 revolution.
 
cindy25 said:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/07/28/rand-paul-fraud-failure-liar/

I don't like post links like this, but even worse is seeing articles like this. antiwar.com should be a huge asset for Rand-now its gone?

Rand could have waited and announced later what his vote would be, maybe link it to the hostages. he did seem too eager to please Israel.
Click to expand...

Ah, c'mon Cindy. You've been around long enough to know that libertarians eat their own. They did the same thing with Ron and his campaign.
 
Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. It's all about the method of payment for oil. The U.S. goes to war to keep the dollar as the medium of exchange. Iraq, Libya, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top