Rand Paul turned into a hawk on Iran and libertarians are burning his stuff

65fastback2+2 said:
I think this is what many are doing here that are flipping out, and its sad. The measure shouldnt be Ron Paul...the measure should be truthfulness and willingness to uphold the constitution and the bill of rights.

Rand scores like a 98% if you look at it like that...thats not voting for the best of the lot, thats voting for liberty.

There were many positions Ron took that I dont agree with. I dont agree with his approval of the whole Iran agreement. His previous stance was that what another country does is of no concern of ours. Yet now he's for some agreement? Thats a flip flop there for Ron.
Click to expand...

Isn't he just saying it's preferable to war or continued escalation?
 
Why am I not surprised to see "libertarians" supporting a deal that will give billions to a regime of Islamic savages? Rand's cuckcservtive tendencies deserve to be called out, but when he's right, he's right.
 
ThePaleoLibertarian said:
Why am I not surprised to see "libertarians" supporting a deal that will give billions to a regime of Islamic savages? Rand's cuckcservtive tendencies deserve to be called out, but when he's right, he's right.
Click to expand...

Because your 8 month record on RPF spouting Stormfront/Traditionalist/Fascist talking points makes you an expert on the liberty movement. :rolleyes:

You deserve to be called out... Every single day, until you submit to the basic liberty message, admit you are against it, or leave.

Or not, gives me something to do at least.
 
wizardwatson said:
Because your 8 month record on RPF spouting Stormfront/Traditionalist/Fascist talking points makes you an expert on the liberty movement. :rolleyes:

You deserve to be called out... Every single day, until you submit to the basic liberty message, admit you are against it, or leave.

Or not, gives me something to do at least.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
ThePaleoLibertarian said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

You think you are safe. Safe from public censure, I suppose. But every word you've said, every person you've ridiculed, and called a "fool" or a "cuck" you have to answer for. We all do. That's why it's best to treat and speak to people as if God himself is in the room. Because He effectively is.

You are posting in a public space in a place where ideas are discussed and people make decisions about what to think and do. It's not "pretend". What you say matters. And you will have to answer for it.

Matthew 12 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. 34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Click to expand...
 
Doesn't this deal give away money to Iran? If so then Rand not supporting it is principled and not pragmatic.
 
HankRicther12 said:
Isn't he just saying it's preferable to war or continued escalation?
Click to expand...

Preferable is not the strict libertarian view...which is why the whole argument is ridiculous either way. Dont hold Rand to the fire over a non libertarian view point when the almighty ron isnt holding to it either.
 
ThePaleoLibertarian said:
Why am I not surprised to see "libertarians" supporting a deal that will give billions to a regime of Islamic savages? Rand's cuckcservtive tendencies deserve to be called out, but when he's right, he's right.
Click to expand...

We also gave 1.5 billion dollars to a bunch of progressive jews who contribute nothing to this country. I'd say we are getting burnt twice.
 
AuH20 said:
We also gave 1.5 billion dollars to a bunch of progressive jews who contribute nothing to this country. I'd say we are getting burnt twice.
Click to expand...

this. Rand has made this point before...why are we paying for an arms race in the middle east?
 
65fastback2+2 said:
Well, then move to another country, because WE fought off the British and WE declared independence and WE put in place the constitution.

Since you never were a part of those negotiations or war and your signature is not found on the document, then according to you, they're rubbish and have no power.

So take your happy rear to north Korea or something.

Until then, WE have a treaty with Israel that WE should uphold.

I am actually aghast that you want to take this STUPID position. We have a WWII treaty with Japan, We have the Geneva Convention documents...etc. etc. etc. So, basically...you want to just ignore our agreements, tell everyone to take a hike and let a President do whatever he wants irrelevant of legally and constitutionally approved past agreements. L O L...thats one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard in my life.
Click to expand...

Does Rand Paul represent the United States or Israel? He needs to take Israel's nuts out of his mouth along with these other politicians. AMERICA FIRST!
 
This what the a GENERAL said of the deal with Iran. A GENERAL. You know someone that will actually have to deal with the war rather than chicken hawk senators running around claiming this deal will be the end of the world as we know it? Regurgitating AIPAC talking points.

Testifying before an overwhelmingly hostile Congress on the Iran nuclear deal, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey says that he generally supports the deal, believing it lowers the risk of Iran getting nuclear arms while still giving the US plenty of time to “confront” Iran about other things.

Dempsey insisted he had advised the White House to keep sanctions against Iran in place for “as long as possible” and to keep on working with allies about possible action against Iran on any other pretext with the resolution of the nuclear issue.

Gen. Dempsey also dismissed concerns about Iran getting frozen money returned to them, saying he believes much of that money will be used as foreign reserves, and that it is “highly exaggerated” to think Iran is just going to send it all to Hezbollah.

Several on the Senate Armed Services Committee, notably Sen. McCain (R – AZ), were loudly opposed to the deal, believing that Iran’s money will allow them to prevent the ouster of the Assad government in Syria, and was therefore tantamount to supporting terror.
Click to expand...

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/07/29/gen-dempsey-iran-deal-lowers-risk-of-iran-getting-nuclear-arms/
 
Why do libertarians support a deal with Iran that essentially amounts to an entangling alliance? This deal contains a provision which forces our government to protect Iran's nuclear program, meaning that we're forced by this agreement to try to prevent another country from bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure. So if a country like Israel wants to bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure, under this agreement we have to try to stop them from doing that, and if Israel chooses to use military action against Iran anyway, this agreement forces us to use military action against Israel. Liberal foreign policy and libertarian foreign policy aren't exactly the same. Libertarians shouldn't be in favor of these kinds of entangling alliances.
 
65fastback2+2 said:
Well, then move to another country, because WE fought off the British and WE declared independence and WE put in place the constitution.

Since you never were a part of those negotiations or war and your signature is not found on the document, then according to you, they're rubbish and have no power.

So take your happy rear to north Korea or something.

Until then, WE have a treaty with Israel that WE should uphold.

I am actually aghast that you want to take this STUPID position. We have a WWII treaty with Japan, We have the Geneva Convention documents...etc. etc. etc. So, basically...you want to just ignore our agreements, tell everyone to take a hike and let a President do whatever he wants irrelevant of legally and constitutionally approved past agreements. L O L...thats one of the dumbest things Ive ever heard in my life.
Click to expand...

So "we" must intervene in Crimea as well? Give me a break. What's stupid is suggesting millions of people are obligated to sacrifice blood and treasure for other countries based on treaties they never got a vote on. Your idiotic comment about me not being at the signing of the Constitution shows how silly your position is.
 
Last edited:
65fastback2+2 said:
At the very basic level....Israel is our legal ally, whom we swore to have their back.
Click to expand...

the US has no formal treaty of alliance with Israel. We are not requred to protect Israel from invasion. Israel is not a NATO member. All of those "memorandums of understanding" agreeing to give Israel weapons are just that -- memos. The President can write another memo cutting them off just as easily.
 
Brett85 said:
Why do libertarians support a deal with Iran that essentially amounts to an entangling alliance? This deal contains a provision which forces our government to protect Iran's nuclear program, meaning that we're forced by this agreement to try to prevent another country from bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure. So if a country like Israel wants to bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure, under this agreement we have to try to stop them from doing that, and if Israel chooses to use military action against Iran anyway, this agreement forces us to use military action against Israel. Liberal foreign policy and libertarian foreign policy aren't exactly the same. Libertarians shouldn't be in favor of these kinds of entangling alliances.
Click to expand...
It requires an understanding that we already are entangled with nations like Israel who are itching to bomb Iran at any chance they get.

Why did we support Ron when he said he'd recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol since in that potential scenario means that many nations we have diplomacy with would not support such a measure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top