Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday

[devil21]

Thank you! It feels like the voices of sanity are dwindling fast around here, and I'm glad to see there are still a few of us.

Oh good god.

Clearly you and TC are working together here to sow division and bury pertinent posts with mindless turbo-posting. It's pretty transparent that your sig is a complete lie, never mind attacking long established members that are trying to talk some sense into you, etc. Classic troll flowchart at work. You seriously underestimate the members of this forum if you think this bullshit is having any effect other than exposing yourself as a liar and a troll.

 

[Brett85]

says the guy from May 2013 (?)

It is on all sides though. We can disagree without attacking forum members, and remember that attacks are against TOS.

Yep. Those of us who are criticizing Rand for this vote aren't personally attacking other members or personally attacking Rand. We're just making our case in a civil way without any name calling like "troll" or "tard" or any of this other garbage.

 

[Brett85]

Oh good god.

Clearly you and TC are working together here to sow division and bury pertinent posts with mindless turbo-posting. It's pretty transparent that your sig is a complete lie, never mind attacking long established members that are trying to talk some sense into you, etc. Classic troll flowchart at work. You seriously underestimate the members of this forum if you think this bullshit is having any effect other than exposing yourself as a liar and a troll.

You and others are the only ones trying to divide others with your personal attacks. Freedom Fanatic and I have both made our points in a reasonable way without attacking other forum members.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The way I see it, Rand may turn off some hardcore supporters but if elected would probably have the most libertarian foreign policy in a century. But he has made clear he isn't a noninterventionist. Keep in mind that minarchists or constitutionalists automatically violate libertarian principles as well in the domestic spheres.

Following simple ideas like the following automatically reduce conflict and military spending while still allowing us to be safe:

*only Congress may declare war
*wars will be fought swiftly and to win, not nation build
*brinkmanship with other nations will only occur with those aggressively positioning themselves against us
*terrorism will be fought with special forces and letters of marque and reprisal

Libertarians aren't all anarchists, and there is disagreement on the exact details. But yeah, I'm not going to disagree that the ancaps are probably the "Most pure." But I'm not someone who can't tolerate any disagreement. I've already stated that there are three issues where my ability to accept disagreement is extremely limited, and that's foreign policy, guns, and the Federal Reserve. There's a lot of room for error there, but on those three I said I put my line in the sand very soon.

says the guy from May 2013 (?)

It is on all sides though. We can disagree without attacking forum members, and remember that attacks are against TOS.

Sorry, I'm definitely in a bad mood today. Is it legitimate to attack the traitor in the senate at least?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Oh good god.

Clearly you and TC are working together here to sow division and bury pertinent posts with mindless turbo-posting. It's pretty transparent that your sig is a complete lie, never mind attacking long established members that are trying to talk some sense into you, etc. Classic troll flowchart at work. You seriously underestimate the members of this forum if you think this bullshit is having any effect other than exposing yourself as a liar and a troll.

Now its a freaking conspiracy? What the crap?

I'm not a "troll" for supporting Ron Paul's foreign policy and opposing those who reject it to the degree that his son has.

Now I'm just waiting for Rand to ask his dad to stay home for the campaign (Credit to Cajuncocoa if this actually happens, she predicted it first.)

 

[Warlord]

Oh good god.

Clearly you and TC are working together here to sow division and bury pertinent posts with mindless turbo-posting. It's pretty transparent that your sig is a complete lie, never mind attacking long established members that are trying to talk some sense into you, etc. Classic troll flowchart at work. You seriously underestimate the members of this forum if you think this bullshit is having any effect other than exposing yourself as a liar and a troll.

This is the post of the thread. Warlord congratulates the Devil.

 

[cero]

It's not economic aid, the resolution mentions "military aid," which means using military action to help them. I didn't say that the first resolution was meaningless but this one isn't. I was saying that if your argument is that Rand should just vote in favor of all non binding resolutions because they're all "meaningless," then he should've voted in favor of the first one as well.

where the FUCK ARE YOU GETTING THIS, where IN THIS BILL DOES IT SAY WE TAKE MILITARY ACTIONS against IRAN, if Israel attacks them?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yep. Those of us who are criticizing Rand for this vote aren't personally attacking other members or personally attacking Rand. We're just making our case in a civil way without any name calling like "troll" or "tard" or any of this other garbage.

To be fair, I probably am "Personally attacking" Rand Paul, but I feel like he deserves it. He just committed an act of treason against the United States as far as I'm concerned...

 

[Brett85]

where the FUCK ARE YOU GETTING THIS, where IN THIS BILL DOES IT SAY WE TAKE MILITARY ACTIONS against IRAN, if Israel attacks them?

"to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel"

 

[Christian Liberty]

This is the post of the thread. Warlord congratulates the Devil.

And the Rand Paul movement shows its true colors

OK, that one just set me up perfectly... Sorry... That one WAS a joke.

 

[Brett85]

The resolution specifically says "military support."

 

[DylanWaco]

again read what the fuck i said, the first vote was a vote AGAINST WAR, which is way easier to defend if rand is attacked with it in 2016
but this bill, is a bill not about wAR but about standing with Israel if LEGITIMATELY attacked.

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 voice of reason to challenge AIPAC and their toadies in Congress.

Second thing you are arguing was the response to my question - i.e. Rand had to vote for this resolution to avoid deathblow "he's an anti-semite" accusation.

Third thing you are arguing is that this vote will be easy to square because it's cloaked in language about legitimate defense from attack.

But what you haven't answered is how the anti-semitism accusation won't apply to the first AIPAC written resolution? Are you seriously arguing that a vote in which he was the lone dissenter to vote against AIPAC's pet project will be forgiven because he did vote for this bill? If so what is the rational for that view?

 

[sailingaway]

Libertarians aren't all anarchists, and there is disagreement on the exact details. But yeah, I'm not going to disagree that the ancaps are probably the "Most pure." But I'm not someone who can't tolerate any disagreement. I've already stated that there are three issues where my ability to accept disagreement is extremely limited, and that's foreign policy, guns, and the Federal Reserve. There's a lot of room for error there, but on those three I said I put my line in the sand very soon.




Sorry, I'm definitely in a bad mood today. Is it legitimate to attack the traitor in the senate at least?

The thing about that is we usually allow some venting and actual attempts to figure out what is going on when some big event happens (at least unless it is really sensitive timing) even in that person's forum.

But at the end of the day, this is Rand's forum and it is here to support him, so if your purpose was to condemn Rand continually, rather than just finding out what is going on and reacting in the moment, this would not be the subforum to hang out in.

 

[cero]

"to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel"

you forgot this part you giant trolling piece of dodo

the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel


does the part in bold MEAN NOTHING TO YOU?
why the fuck are you just picking and choosing whatever suits your trolling needs?

 

[tsai3904]

The resolution specifically says "military support."

Do you believe Rand when he says an attack on Israel is an attack on US?

 

[Brett85]

you forgot this part you giant trolling piece of dodo

the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel


does the part in bold MEAN NOTHING TO YOU?
why the fuck are you just picking and choosing whatever suits your trolling needs?

I'm no longer going to respond to any of your posts when you can't seem to have a civil conversation and simply engage in nasty personal attacks.

 

[devil21]

"to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel"

Also says the resolution is not an AUMF and that any action on the part of Congress must go through proper Congressional procedure. What's that mean? It can be properly debated, properly voted on, and (hopefully) properly SHOT DOWN. Like the Constitution proscribes. Again, this is not the time for this battle....when the entire scenario is hypothetical and not even realistically likely to happen.

 

[Brett85]

Do you believe Rand when he says an attack on Israel is an attack on US?

I didn't have as much of a problem with his statement on that since he was specifically talking about an "attack" on Israel. I have a problem with the idea that the U.S government should provide military support to Israel if they decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, which is what I believe this resolution says.

 

[cajuncocoa]

The way I see it, Rand may turn off some hardcore supporters but if elected would probably have the most libertarian foreign policy in a century. But he has made clear he isn't a noninterventionist. Keep in mind that minarchists or constitutionalists automatically violate libertarian principles as well in the domestic spheres.

That's setting the bar incredibly low, isn't it?

 

[cero]

I'm no longer going to respond to any of your posts when you can't seem to have a civil conversation and simply engage in nasty personal attacks.

I just called you out for picking and choosing w/e fits to support your arguments with out looking at the whole thing, and you pull this.....

wooow, is the internet grow a pair, the fact that you can't defend your arguments and instead hide behind the "your hurt MY FEELINGS SO I WONT TALK TO YOU" card to not even argue and try to defend your point is pathetic.