Senate vote 100-0

ZanZibar said:
Well I disagree with Rand on his vote, I think sanctions are almost always bad, but I do agree that they are not an act of war. I didn't understand this until I did some research on it last week.
Click to expand...

Good lawyers can argue both sides of any issue. Here's a well researched paper that takes the opposite position from the one you've taken.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/gordon.htm
 
Last edited:
Perhaps some of you people missed the press release that Rand issued during his primary campaign when he said that he "wants to get tough instead of talking tough with Iran."

Rand Paul can go over there and get tough with Iran all he wants to, just leave me the hell out of it.
 
War is a tricky word nowadays... But sanctions are most certainly an act of aggression.

I don't like it, but let's face it, this one unprincipled compromise has earned him the darling support of many neocon talking heads who froth at the mouth over Ron's foreign policy. And also let's not pretend like Ron didn't have to do it too with the Afghanistan authorization.

And look, if a blunder with Iran is the price to restore liberty in every other facet of American politics... Well, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs...
 
Eggs in this case being average Iranian civilians who are just trying to go about their lives.
 
kylejack said:
Eggs in this case being average Iranian civilians who are just trying to go about their lives.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. Of course eggs mean people. What other context has that saying ever been used in?
One way or another Persian people suffer.
I wish there was a purist to support, but purists don't build coalitions.
I wish Ron voted no on Afghanistan.
But then we all probably wouldn't be here now.
 
lib3rtarian said:
Let's talk after examining her voting record for the next 30 years. If Ron's own son is not as steadfast as Ron, then I don't expect an outsider to be.
Click to expand...

Rand is one of the reasons why I looked into Voluntaryism. If Ron's own son is like this then there is no hope.
 
He has lost the confidence I never had in him anyway. He has shown us all he lacks principles, at the very least. This is old news anyway?
 
lib3rtarian said:
Let's talk after examining her voting record for the next 30 years. If Ron's own son is not as steadfast as Ron, then I don't expect an outsider to be.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but she exposed the world to a lot of the false intelligence that led to the Iraq war while working in the Pentagon, says "the Constitution is great, but I'm more of an Articles of Confederation gal," and has written extensively for LewRockwell.com. If there's going to be a Ron Paul in the House, it's her.
 
What came to my mind is how Roosevelt used sanctions against Japan to goad them into a response that could then justify our entrance into the Pacific war. Roosevelt's administration new exactly what they were doing and only miscalculated the target of Japan's retaliatory attack. Right now the Middle East is a powder keg that could rapidly approach the seriousness of the Cuban Missile Crisis if either of the two governments miscalculates in their moves of this war game.
 
kuckfeynes said:
Thanks for clarifying. Of course eggs mean people. What other context has that saying ever been used in?
One way or another Persian people suffer.
I wish there was a purist to support, but purists don't build coalitions.
I wish Ron voted no on Afghanistan.
But then we all probably wouldn't be here now.
Click to expand...
It's unethical to vote to initiate force against others to progress politically. And I'm not convinced this helps him progress anyway.
 
I understand the anger towards Rand during the heat of the moment. Now take a breathe and look at his entire body of work.

He's not Ron Paul. At the same time, he's not a neo-con, nor is he anywhere close to the statists that every other Presidential candidate is. He's also probably far more palpable to mainstream GOP members than his father. If Ron Paul doesn't win in 2012, Rand will be very well positioned to run in 2016. Now each of you have to ask yourself, if you can only have 90% of Ron Paul in a candidate, is that candidate worth backing? If not, you're going to be waiting a long time before another candidate puts together the decades worth of a resume that Ron has.

Personally, I don't like everything about Ron anyways, so I've already dealt with this, and I will back Ron 100% during this campaign, as I did in 2008. If Rand is the most electable in 2016, then I'll fully back him also. Outside of Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Gary Johnson are currently the only candidates with a remote shot at having a President that will put us back on the path to restoring civil and economic liberty.
 
Sorry, I draw the line at honest disagreement once a politician has blood on his hands. And that now seems likely.
 
Regardless of Rand's role in this, I think it will be nothing less than a miracle if we don't launch a major offensive in Iran before the 2012 elections. I fear that is the establishment's 'plan B.' That is the biggest thing to take away from this, in my opinion.
 
kylejack said:
Sorry, I draw the line at honest disagreement once a politician has blood on his hands. And that now seems likely.
Click to expand...

That's too bad, Ron Paul could really use your vote.
I implore you to reconsider and not hold AUMF 2001 against him.
 
even if rand developed cojones to later be bold enough to go for a 99-1 vote on similar issues in the future,you can be sure 'ideologically consistent' is something he will never be called.lets face it,rand is not as principled as ron.this is disapointing,but he may win some silly presidential elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anti Federalist
Texas Attorney General Kenneth Paxton Acquitted in Senate Impeachment Trial, Reinstated as AG
Replies
2
Views
562
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
PAF
Trump’s Record on Foreign Policy: Lost Wars, New Conflicts, and Broken Promises
Replies
2
Views
780
PAF
PAF
PAF
For the Love of God, Stop Saying Trump Was an Antiwar President
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
6K
jmdrake
jmdrake
Liberty_Tree
Evidence Indicates that, Like Oswald, John Wilkes Booth Was Part of Wider Conspiracy
Replies
3
Views
2K
oyarde
O
osan
Brunson v. Adams: Read This Most Interesting Case
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
jbnevin
jbnevin
Back
Top