Rand Paul voted for Iran sanctions?

[bluesc]

But Ron gives them those kernels of truth which morph into those sensationalist headlines! He's his own worst enemy at times.

The media can spin anything. They choose what to spin. Some of the stuff that Cain came out with and the media called anyone that criticized him for it a racist. They target Ron, and he will always be treated this way, no matter what he says.

 

[AuH20]

The media can spin anything. They choose what to spin. Some of the stuff that Cain came out with and the media called anyone that criticized him for it a racist. They target Ron, and he will always be treated this way, no matter what he says.

That's why I'd be a low-key candidate and laugh all the way to the White House. Sorry ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox but I won't be a willing participant in your games.

 

[bluesc]

That's why I'd be a low-key candidate and laugh all the way to the White House Sorry ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox but I don't participate in your games.

That only works for Romney because he gets positive coverage every 5 minutes. The media would love for Ron to go silent, because that would justify completely ignoring him.

 

[AuH20]

That only works for Romney because he gets positive coverage every 5 minutes. The media would love for Ron to go silent, because that would justify completely ignoring him.

Ron's problem is that for a long time, he has ceded ground to the MSM and let them define him. He's commonly known as the kook LIBERTARIAN doctor who wants to deliver a nuclear device to Tehran. I'd be hopping mad as soon as the interviewer started castigating me as some kind of fringe, out-of-touch player but Ron being the consummate gentleman just lets them walk all over him. He needs to be more like Buchanan or Thomas Woods who are bulldogs at turning the tables on their adversaries.

 

[Brett85]

He half ass opposed the Patriot Act renewal.try again.

"Half ass opposed?" You've got to be kidding me. Rand railed against the Patriot Act constantly and led a one man effort to filibuster it. What more could he have possibly done? Light the Capitol on fire?

 

[Brett85]

Killing Bin Laden was completely unnecessary, he should have been brought to trial in America. Why did the U.S. capture Saddam Hussein alive? Why has the entire world complained that Gadaffi was executed by the rebels rather than bringing him to trial alive? If your claim is that Americans wanted Bin Laden executed on the spot, my question is....why? Why did they want that?

I agree that we should've tried to capture Bin Laden alive rather than killing him, but there still wasn't a thing wrong with the actual operation. We had every right to either kill or capture a man who killed over 3,000 of our own people.

 

[Brett85]

Ron controls the information?! He says he would decriminalize drugs at the federal level and a week later every Republican voter acts like he endorses Heroin.

That simply isn't true. In that debate, Ron flat out said that Heroine should be legalized. That was another time that he screwed up in a debate. He should've just made the states' rights argument, but he didn't do that. I agree with Ron that all drugs should be legalized, but you can't sell that to most GOP voters. It has to be framed as a 10th amendment issue.

 

[bluesc]

That simply isn't true. In that debate, Ron flat out said that Heroine should be legalized. That was another time that he screwed up in a debate. He should've just made the states' rights argument, but he didn't do that.

My point was that the voters and media acted as if he endorsed the use of heroin. My point was the hysteria that the media creates from an answer that they knew they would get is ridiculous. He got caught up in how awful Wallace made him look by flat out asking "you REALLY think heroin should be legalized?" I agree he could have answered it better, but he did not endorse the use of heroin.

 

[AuH20]

My point was that the voters and media acted as if he endorsed the use of heroin. My point was the hysteria that the media creates from an answer that they knew they would get is ridiculous. He got caught up in how awful Wallace made him look by flat out asking "you REALLY think heroin should be legalized?" I agree he could have answered it better, but he did not endorse the use of heroin.

You have to wonder why the media digs around Ron Paul for destructive, poorly worded sound bytes more than any other candidate. I'll tell you point blank why. It's because he serves them up with regularity, so like an eager dog scratching on the door of the butcher shop, they're looking for more delicious scraps. It's Ron's fault. Don't feed the animals.

 

[Matthew5]

You have to wonder why the media digs around Ron Paul for destructive, poorly worded sound bytes more than any other candidate. I'll tell you point blank why. It's because he serves them up with regularity, so like an eager dog scratching on the door of the butcher shop, they're looking for more delicious scraps. It's Ron's fault. Don't feed the animals.

I think you're confusing him with Perry.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I agree that we should've tried to capture Bin Laden alive rather than killing him, but there still wasn't a thing wrong with the actual operation. We had every right to either kill or capture a man who killed over 3,000 of our own people.

Without charges or a trial?

KSM, by all accounts the guy who actually planned and put together the 9/11 attacks, was not assassinated, but arrested with Pakistan's assistance. We flubbed after that, but there's no reason we couldn't have done the same with OBL.

 

[Brett85]

Without charges or a trial?

KSM, by all accounts the guy who actually planned and put together the 9/11 attacks, was not assassinated, but arrested with Pakistan's assistance. We flubbed after that, but there's no reason we couldn't have done the same with OBL.

Pakistan hasn't been a very good friend to the United States for quite some time. All the evidence points to Pakistan harboring Bin Laden. They most likely would've tipped him off if we had involved them in the operation.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Pakistan hasn't been a very good friend to the United States for quite some time. All the evidence points to Pakistan harboring Bin Laden. They most likely would've tipped him off if we had involved them in the operation.

Perhaps, but if we stopped drone attacking its citizens, who knows how it would have gone down? The only way the raid would have been proper is if we had declared war on Pakistan. Which, obviously, is not a wise way to behave internationally.

 

[Brett85]

Perhaps, but if we stopped drone attacking its citizens, who knows how it would have gone down? The only way the raid would have been proper is if we had declared war on Pakistan. Which, obviously, is not a wise way to behave internationally.

The authorization of the use of military force gave the government the legal right to kill those who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks, such as Bin Laden. That resolution didn't even contain the word "Afghanistan." It was specifically meant to authorize the kind of operation that killed Bin Laden.

 

[ZanZibar]

Hey, so what happened to "That's irrelevant, a letter to the President doesn't have the power of law behind it"? A Yea vote does.

Sadly, you are correct. Rhetoric is one thing, a vote is another.

 

[ZanZibar]

He needs to get a haircut first. Nobody is going to vote for Zorg.

LOL I didn't get the reference but I looked it up and can't stop laughing HA HA HA HA

 

[MaxPower]

Now, I know this amendment is referred to as imposing "sanctions," but the only thing I see listed in terms of actual specific policy it imposes is that it stipulates that the US won't do business with Iran's central bank. Quite frankly, I feel perfectly fine with the idea of the US government not "doing business" (as we know they so love to do) with Iran's central bank (which shouldn't even exist anyway); I would oppose "sanctions" of the variety that, say, force US companies not to sell to Iran, resulting in the unnecessary starvation and withholding of medication from citizens.

 

[nayjevin]

Can someone post the details?

Now, I know this amendment is referred to as imposing "sanctions," but the only thing I see listed in terms of actual specific policy it imposes is that it stipulates that the US won't do business with Iran's central bank. Quite frankly, I feel perfectly fine with the idea of the US government not "doing business" (as we know they so love to do) with Iran's central bank (which shouldn't even exist anyway); I would oppose "sanctions" of the variety that, say, force US companies not to sell to Iran, resulting in the unnecessary starvation and withholding of medication from citizens.

now we're cookin with oil

 

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Yeah its not a good vote at all.

You know what? I actually don't give much of a damn.

I'm sorry, I just don't.

If there can be a politician that is right on just about everything, like 99%(No, not the Hannity definition of 99%), then I will take him all the time.

All these people saying he is a traitor or whatever, I don't have any sympathy for you.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Now, I know this amendment is referred to as imposing "sanctions," but the only thing I see listed in terms of actual specific policy it imposes is that it stipulates that the US won't do business with Iran's central bank. Quite frankly, I feel perfectly fine with the idea of the US government not "doing business" (as we know they so love to do) with Iran's central bank (which shouldn't even exist anyway); I would oppose "sanctions" of the variety that, say, force US companies not to sell to Iran, resulting in the unnecessary starvation and withholding of medication from citizens.

Does more than that, bro. Not to mention, under what authority does the US government restrict me from trading with any entity with which I wish to interact?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...bjects-really/2011/12/02/gIQA7yELKO_blog.html

1) Prohibit the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account on foreign financial institutions engaged in non-petroleum-related transactions with the Central Bank of Iran after 60 days; 2) Impose sanctions on foreign financial institutions, including central banks, engaged in petroleum-related transactions with the Central Bank of Iran after 180 days with 180-day special exemptions tied to the availability of non-Iranian oil on the market and a country’s significant reduction in purchases of Iranian oil; 3) Provide a humanitarian exception for food, medicine and medical devices; and 4) Provide the president with an unclassified (with classified annex, if necessary) national security waiver authority every 120 days.