cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
If Rand's principles cannot stand up to being in the Senate, how in the hell is he going to manage in the Oval Office?
Senate to vote on Iran resolution on Wednesday
- Thread starter tsai3904
- Start date
green73
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 13,670
So it's more important to stop war with Syria than to stop war with Iran? Why is that?
cajuncocoa
Banned
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 16,013
I saw in another thread the no show was Frank Lautenberg of NJ...don't know why.
supermario21
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 4,060
War with Iran isn't going to happen. If it ever gets close, Rand will vote against an authorization almost for sure considering it would come prematurely. Syria is ongoing. They're not passing phony pep talk resolutions with regard to Syria, they're sending money and weapons. That's a bigger deal.
Warlord
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2013
- Messages
- 11,694
War with Iran is not on the agenda. They dont want regime change in Iran. They're not talking about it. They've made up some convoluted hypothetical involving Israel with plenty of get outs.
Syria meanwhile Obama has said 'Assad must go' i.e the US wants regime change in Syria (notice he's not saying 'Kohemni must go') which is utter madness and yes must be fought against and if you notice Rand is doing just that in the committee the other day fighting against the arming of the so called rebels.
supermario21
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 4,060
Watching today's debate showed that the neocons real objective in the present is Syria. Even Rubio when he took the floor spent most of his time ranting about how important it was to arm the rebels. Iran will be a bridge crossed when Lindsey Graham and McCain get there. Rand Paul will likely be against any actual war in Iran, just like he is against any intervention in Syria.
Warlord
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2013
- Messages
- 11,694
He's 90 years old and very ill.
No, it proves that he actually read both resolutions before he voted on them and wasn't going to do something stupid like give AIPAC smear material over a resolution that has no force of law whatsoever. Do you think Rand is a dumbass that wants to walk into intentional traps like these resolutions?
The first AIPAC resolution that Rand voted against had no force of law either.
Are you saying that Ron Paul is lying when he says that he and Rand are 99% in agreement?
It's weird watching people compare a 12 term Congressman to a first term Senator when it comes to strategy.
What makes you think it's an AIPAC resolution?
Warlord
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2013
- Messages
- 11,694
Tsai has explained to you why he voted against that one and he spoke on the senate floor for 12 minutes on why he voted against it but for some reason you refuse to watch or accept it.
This one is much weaker than the last one.
Voting isn't "strategy." You can maybe say that rhetoric and endorsements is part of "strategy," but taking anti liberty votes should be off limits when pursuing any kind of strategy.
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
That is complete and utter bullshit. Netanyahu still wants U.S. aid, which is why he is always clamoring for it. He just doesn't want our troops on his soil.
Right, and that was a better explanation than Devil's claim that Rand simply votes for these kind of resolutions because "they have no force of law." The fact that this resolution has no force of law is completely meaningless since Rand has voted against other resolutions that also have no force of law.
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
You only represent yourself; no one else.
