Mike Lee Confirms He Is A Statist Puppet (Yes on S.J. Res 41)

[anaconda]

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/2/197

[Smart3]

DeMint, Toomey, Johnson, Coburn, etc voted for this.

I'm a little surprised Rand didn't. At this rate, the formal declaration of war against Iran will only be opposed by Rand.

[NewRightLibertarian]

DeMint, Toomey, Johnson, Coburn, etc voted for this.

Not a surprise considering all those guys are trash

[cindy25]

and history will remember that Rand was right.

plus Rand is trying to make amends for endorsing Mitt.

[cajuncocoa]

DeMint, Toomey, Johnson, Coburn, etc voted for this.

I'm a little surprised Rand didn't. At this rate, the formal declaration of war against Iran will only be opposed by Rand.I was never fooled into thinking any of these are liberty candidates.

[FrankRep]

LPAC 2011: Mike Lee - Pt. 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vZKs8LJOTk)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vZKs8LJOTk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vZKs8LJOTk

[Travlyr]

I too am an unapologetic statist in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and the classical liberals of "Day's Gone Bye". I am not afraid to go against the grain to promote what we know is the method, as history has proved, to achieve "Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity" for individuals.

[Cowlesy]

I think they voted for it because there is a clause that says something to the effect of "this does NOT give implicit consent for war." Rand obviously didn't buy it, but I can see why they voted Yes on it.

[cajuncocoa]

I think they voted for it because there is a clause that says something to the effect of "this does NOT give implicit consent for war." Rand obviously didn't buy it, but I can see why they voted Yes on it.That's the same excuse those who voted for the IWR used.

[specsaregood]

I think they voted for it because there is a clause that says something to the effect of "this does NOT give implicit consent for war." Rand obviously didn't buy it, but I can see why they voted Yes on it.

I think Rand is the reason that clause was added to it.

[mz10]

At this rate, the formal declaration of war against Iran will only be opposed by Rand.

Correction: the authorization of use of military force. Declaring war is so, like, 1940s.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

Nah.

[AuH20]

More "sky is falling" nonsense about a very good politician. Totally ignoring the vote he stuck his neck out on. I guess when you have an agenda to disparage certain politicians you run with it regardless:

http://iroots.org/2012/09/22/us-senate-votes-to-continue-foreign-aid-to-libya-egypt-and-pakistan/


After months of championing the issue of ending foreign aid, Sen. Rand Paul succeeded in his filibuster mission to bring his legislation to a vote. No surprise, the bill failed tonight by a vote of 81 to 10.

Senators voting in support of Rand Paul’s bill to limit foreign aid: DeMint, Grassley, Shelby, Paul, Toomey, Moran, Lee, Roberts, Risch and Crapo. The rest of the Senate voted to continue foreign aid to Libya, Egypt and Pakistan. (See list below.)

[Cowlesy]

That's the same excuse those who voted for the IWR used.

I understand your outrage. But these guys aren't practicing philosophy, they're practicing politics. I think Mike Lee is one of the absolute best in the senate, and I support him fully. Hence why I still post occasionally on this politics messageboard.

[Cowlesy]

I think Rand is the reason that clause was added to it.

I imagine you're correct.


More "sky is falling" nonsense about a very good politician. Totally ignoring the vote he stuck his neck out on. I guess when you have an agenda to disparage certain politicians you run with it regardless:

http://iroots.org/2012/09/22/us-senate-votes-to-continue-foreign-aid-to-libya-egypt-and-pakistan/

I completely agree. On a side note, there's never going to be another Ron Paul.

And we've so bastardized the definition of neocon. On this forum and more widely on the internet, a neocon is anyone who doesn't vote 100% how Ron Paul would vote.

It's very frustrating to agree philosophically with so many people, but then try to watch everyone try and do politics. I don't even think we can fix the system, but that doesn't mean I am not going to support people who I believe are honest, and doing the best they can to do so.

[AJ Antimony]

plus Rand is trying to make amends for endorsing Mitt.

LOL That's the LAST thing he's trying to do, and rightly so.

[alucard13mmfmj]

lol. why does house/congress vote matter anymore. president can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants.

these guys (most of congress/house) are just a bunch of overpaid civil servants that cant get anything positive done to get the country back on the right track.

[DylanWaco]

Apparently it is "sky is falling nonsense" to call out a politician who is pro-Empire now.

"But hey, he voted for that hyper-nationalist do as we say or else foreign aid amendment! Give the guy some credit!"

[Brett85]

Mike Lee has never clamed to be a libertarian, or a non interventionist. He's just a conservative who happens to be better on civil liberties than most other Republicans.

[low preference guy]

anaconda is a quite lenient when it comes to Rand, but very harsh to Mike Lee.

[Cowlesy]

Apparently it is "sky is falling nonsense" to call out a politician who is pro-Empire now.

"But hey, he voted for that hyper-nationalist do as we say or else foreign aid amendment! Give the guy some credit!"

Oh, whoa is you.

Because a few of us have a different point of view (and it looks like our mild dissent is in the minority here), specifically the perspective of, "A lot of these guys do a good job for the most part" -- that's now akin to us saying everyone else is off their rocker?

I love libertarian hyperbole.

[Sola_Fide]

anaconda is a quite lenient when it comes to Rand, but very harsh to Mike Lee.

I think a lot of us are, rightly or wrongly. I've definitely been guilty of giving Rand too many passes in the past.

[anaconda]

I too am an unapologetic statist in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and the classical liberals of "Day's Gone Bye". I am not afraid to go against the grain to promote what we know is the method, as history has proved, to achieve "Liberty, Peace, and Prosperity" for individuals.

What's the method?

[Travlyr]

What's the method?

Liberalism must be allowed to thrive.

Liberalism (http://mises.org/liberal/isec1.asp)
"The philosophers, sociologists, and economists of the eighteenth and the early part of the nineteenth century formulated a political program that served as a guide to social policy first in England and the United States, then on the European continent, and finally in the other parts of the inhabited world as well. Nowhere was this program ever completely carried out. Even in England, which has been called the homeland of liberalism and the model liberal country, the proponents of liberal policies never succeeded in winning all their demands. In the rest of the world only parts of the liberal program were adopted, while others, no less important, were either rejected from the very first or discarded after a short time. Only with some exaggeration can one say that the world once lived through a liberal era. Liberalism was never permitted to come to full fruition." - Ludwig von Mises

Complete Separation of Money and State
The Rule of Law Must be Honored and Obeyed
Respect the Rights of Others as closely as possible - A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS (http://www.nationalcenter.org/VirginiaDeclaration.html)

[anaconda]

Liberalism must be allowed to thrive.


Complete Separation of Money and State
The Rule of Law Must be Honored and Obeyed
Respect the Rights of Others as closely as possible - A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS (http://www.nationalcenter.org/VirginiaDeclaration.html)

I see. Thanks. Now I see what you meant.

[DylanWaco]

Oh, whoa is you.

Because a few of us have a different point of view (and it looks like our mild dissent is in the minority here), specifically the perspective of, "A lot of these guys do a good job for the most part" -- that's now akin to us saying everyone else is off their rocker?

I love libertarian hyperbole.

Whoa is me? It's your type that cry like infants any time anyone dares venture off the "Don't worry the GOP will save us!" plantation.

I don't have any sort of unique hatred for Lee. I'm just not a mentally ill person who believes he's beyond criticism because he spoke at LPAC twice.

[doctor jones]

I understand your outrage. But these guys aren't practicing philosophy, they're practicing politics. I think Mike Lee is one of the absolute best in the senate, and I support him fully. Hence why I still post occasionally on this politics messageboard.

+1 for the wise old Cow

[Smart3]

Correction: the authorization of use of military force. Declaring war is so, like, 1940s.
I think a formal declaration of war on Iran is possible still.

[AuH20]

Whoa is me? It's your type that cry like infants any time anyone dares venture off the "Don't worry the GOP will save us!" plantation.

I don't have any sort of unique hatred for Lee. I'm just not a mentally ill person who believes he's beyond criticism because he spoke at LPAC twice.

No one said Lee is above criticism. It's the tone that is pretty inexplicable. It sounds like he murdered a kennel of puppies.

[anaconda]

I think a formal declaration of war on Iran is possible still.

The reason, perhaps, that we never have declarations of war is because they are difficult to satisfy the conditions for:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/aug/14/why-does-ron-paul-insist-declaration-war/

[anaconda]

I think they voted for it because there is a clause that says something to the effect of "this does NOT give implicit consent for war." Rand obviously didn't buy it, but I can see why they voted Yes on it.

What chaps my hide is that no one (including Ron & Rand) will speak out about how the "evidence" for Iran's nuclear weapons program is a ridiculous sham. There is none with any credibility. Google "laptop of death." It's as big a joke as yellow cake uranium and aluminum tubes. Seriously, Rand could blow this wide open and there isn't a damn thing the establishment could do about it. Except start some new lies, but then there would be no evidence for those, either. I am dumfounded that neither Rand nor Ron address the credibility of the alleged evidence. Ron sort of does (he has called this saber rattling "war propaganda," I believe, and says that Iran has not violated the non-proliferation treaty) but does not attack the "evidence" specifically.

[Brett85]

I'm a fan of Mike Lee, but he deserves to be criticized when he votes the wrong way, and he voted the wrong way here.