Thoughts on "An attack on Israel is a attack on the US"

[klamath]

I am very disturbed by Rand's statement because I truely believe that the blind loyal support for Israel no matter what they do is what brings a majority of the hate on the US from the muslim Arab world but I believe Rand deserves enough respect to bring me to think outside the box and view it from a real world prospective.
What IS the real world in the middle east? Israel is hated without exception in the arab world rightly or wrongly, that IS a fact. Would the arab world quite possibly attack Israel if we suddenly quit backing them. Very likely especially if we quit paying Egypt billions not to fight Israel.
Anybody that thinks Israeli nukes would be a deterent better do their research on the Yom Kippur War. Israel was on the verge of using nuclear weapons then because they were about to be defeated. The only thing that saved israel was Operation Nickel Glass, the massive resupply of Israel by the US.
Now jump to the future of a Rand presidency that openly states that all aid too everyone in the middle east is hereby ceased. This very possibly could give the Arab world the idea that they could finish what they almost accomplished in 1973.

NOW jump to the real world in the US. Rand has just won a narrow victory to the presidency. Suddenly 3 or 4 Months into his presidency an all out Israeli Arab war breaks out. Two ways it is going to end. Many arab cities nuked, or the genocide of the Israeli citizens. Any one of those two things play out and it would be the last time a noninterventionist libertarian got any where near office EVER again no matter how much good he was doing at home. Rand would probably be impeached. You can whine and complain but that IS the real world. No US president is going to stay in office watching a full scale arab revenge on the jews after 70 years of holocost indoctrination. It would be the end of non intervention forever for the US.
One statement like this by Rand might very well be the only way he can keep a full scale war from breaking out right at the begining of his presidency while he slowly and carefully works to unwrap ourselves from there.

[amy31416]

If the Israelis throw a fit and start nuking Muslim countries because they no longer have support for the ongoing apartheid and terrorism against the Palestinians, well that doesn't speak well of them, does it? But you're probably right, we should keep up the status quo because it's better to keep up appearances, have more 9/11 events plotted against us, have our own soldiers killed and our economy drained...because heck, other countries might be fighting the war they should have fought years ago.

[69360]

Oh whatever. You all need to relax about this. Rand just stated the truth that will keep him viable. Last time I checked congress has the power to declare war, not the president. If a country attacks Israel congress will do something no matter who is president and what party they come from, it's just the way it is.

[klamath]

If the Israelis throw a fit and start nuking Muslim countries because they no longer have support for the ongoing apartheid and terrorism against the Palestinians, well that doesn't speak well of them, does it? But you're probably right, we should keep up the status quo because it's better to keep up appearances, have more 9/11 events plotted against us, have our own soldiers killed and our economy drained...because heck, other countries might be fighting the war they should have fought years ago. Boy you didn't read much of what I wrote did you?

[klamath]

Oh whatever. You all need to relax about this. Rand just stated the truth that will keep him viable. Last time I checked congress has the power to declare war, not the president. If a country attacks Israel congress will do something no matter who is president and what party they come from, it's just the way it is. Yes you are right and if Rand doesn't prosecute the war he WILL be impeached. Kind of a rotten spot to be in.

[JoshLowry]

Last time I checked congress has the power to declare war, not the president.

Yea, that's how they say it works.

Obama said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Then he sent the military to attack Libya.

[kcchiefs6465]

Isn't there 30 some odd pages of this in HT?

[klamath]

Yea, that's how they say it works.

Obama said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Then he sent the military to attack Libya.
Unfortunately in this case if the president refused to follow the constitution and didn't commence the war he would be impeached.

[amy31416]

Boy you didn't read much of what I wrote did you?

I'm still hurting from all the eye-rolling, so yes.

You seem to separate the actual human toll from political expediency and keeping up appearances so Rand can "play chess" while people die and are sucked dry. Obama supporters do that too, in order to defend his drones, the NDAA and Patriot Act.

Listen, I'll probably vote for Rand as a "hail Mary" type of vote, but if his all-out supporters could stop with the condescending bullshit, that'd be great--not even saying that's you, but I don't really care as much about Rand's political career as many here do, and I didn't get into this movement because of some dude who plays politics.


So when you guys start trying to think of ways to get everyone on board with Rand or whomever, it would behoove you to remember that we're not a bunch of typical knuckleheads who will go "ohhh! this other guy has scared me into voting for candidate X, Y or Z. Your post is just as ineffective and annoying as Matt's copy/paste of talking points.

In regards to your post, if the US hadn't interfered in the Yom Kippur war, this would have been settled long ago. It's just another case for non-intervention, certainly not a case to continue it and foreign aid.

[amy31416]

..........................

[S.Shorland]

There's no other way to win your presidency but to hold that view,apparently.

[kcchiefs6465]

Oh whatever. You all need to relax about this. Rand just stated the truth that will keep him viable. Last time I checked congress has the power to declare war, not the president. If a country attacks Israel congress will do something no matter who is president and what party they come from, it's just the way it is.
WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY THESE STATUS QUO STATEMENTS TO UNCONDITIONALLY SUPPORT ISRAEL MAKE ME FUCKING SICK. IS IT REALLY TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT ONE MEMBER OF CONGRESS COULD GROW A PAIR OF BALLS AND SAY ISRAEL IS A SOVEREIGN NATION THAT DOESN'T NEED OUR SUPPORT? OH, I FORGOT, HE RETIRED. :( :mad:

[JoshLowry]

Unfortunately in this case if the president refused to follow the constitution and didn't commence the war he would be impeached.

It'd be nice to have a 21st century voting system to tally votes for war.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm still hurting from all the eye-rolling, so yes.

You seem to separate the actual human toll from political expediency and keeping up appearances so Rand can "play chess" while people die and are sucked dry. Obama supporters do that too, in order to defend his drones, the NDAA and Patriot Act.

Listen, I'll probably vote for Rand as a "hail Mary" type of vote, but if his all-out supporters could stop with the condescending bullshit, that'd be great--not even saying that's you, but I don't really care as much about Rand's political career as many here do, and I didn't get into this movement because of some dude who plays politics.


So when you guys start trying to think of ways to get everyone on board with Rand or whomever, it would behoove you to remember that we're not a bunch of typical knuckleheads who will go "ohhh! this other guy has scared me into voting for candidate X, Y or Z. Your post is just as ineffective and annoying as Matt's copy/paste of talking points.

In regards to your post, if the US hadn't interfered in the Yom Kippur war, this would have been settled long ago. It's just another case for non-intervention, certainly not a case to continue it and foreign aid.
Must spread some rep around.

[kcchiefs6465]

It'd be nice to have a 21st century voting system to tally votes for war.

Though money developed naturally in the marketplace, as governments grew in power they assumed monopoly control over money. Sometimes governments succeeded in guaranteeing the quality and purity of gold, but in time governments learned to outspend their revenues. New or higher taxes always incurred the disapproval of the people, so it wasn't long before Kings and Caesars learned how to inflate their currencies by reducing the amount of gold in each coin — always hoping their subjects wouldn't discover the fraud. But the people always did, and they strenuously objected.

This helped pressure leaders to seek more gold by conquering other nations. The people became accustomed to living beyond their means, and enjoyed the circuses and bread. Financing extravagances by conquering foreign lands seemed a logical alternative to working harder and producing more. Besides, conquering nations not only brought home gold, they brought home slaves as well. Taxing the people in conquered territories also provided an incentive to build empires. This system of government worked well for a while, but the moral decline of the people led to an unwillingness to produce for themselves. There was a limit to the number of countries that could be sacked for their wealth, and this always brought empires to an end. When gold no longer could be obtained, their military might crumbled. In those days those who held the gold truly wrote the rules and lived well.- Ron Paul

I don't have much faith in the people, either.

[acptulsa]

In regards to your post, if the US hadn't interfered in the Yom Kippur war, this would have been settled long ago. It's just another case for non-intervention, certainly not a case to continue it and foreign aid.

That's true. But the OP is a study in something that holds us back because most voters out there don't think we have it. And that is, a real exercise in 'how do we get from here to where we should be'? Ron Paul understood that, which is why we didn't have to argue the virtues of pulling the Social Security rug out from under millions of people who had no choice but to pay into it, and now have little else to rely on.

It makes no sense to the idealogues, but it's true nonetheless--no matter how good a world we could ultimately produce, if we seem dead set on doing what's right no matter what happens in the process we won't win any elections.

[klamath]

I'm still hurting from all the eye-rolling, so yes.

You seem to separate the actual human toll from political expediency and keeping up appearances so Rand can "play chess" while people die and are sucked dry. Obama supporters do that too, in order to defend his drones, the NDAA and Patriot Act.

Listen, I'll probably vote for Rand as a "hail Mary" type of vote, but if his all-out supporters could stop with the condescending bullshit, that'd be great--not even saying that's you, but I don't really care as much about Rand's political career as many here do, and I didn't get into this movement because of some dude who plays politics.


So when you guys start trying to think of ways to get everyone on board with Rand or whomever, it would behoove you to remember that we're not a bunch of typical knuckleheads who will go "ohhh! this other guy has scared me into voting for candidate X, Y or Z. Your post is just as ineffective and annoying as Matt's copy/paste of talking points.

In regards to your post, if the US hadn't interfered in the Yom Kippur war, this would have been settled long ago. It's just another case for non-intervention, certainly not a case to continue it and foreign aid.
I am not trying to convince anyone about Rand, don't lump me in with Matt. This is NOT about who is right or wrong in the middle east. This is about whether the American public would allow a US president to turn a blind eye to the anililation of israel. Think about it Amy. If there is extreme distruction of arab cities and nuclear fallout, it will be made sure that the the US president takes the blame by the media for allowing things to escalate to nuclear war. On top of the cities being nuked ALL the oil fields would be nuked as well. Gasoline $20 bucks a gallon, who takes the blame? That is not how I want it to be, it is however how the political world is. How best to deal with it?

[Feeding the Abscess]

I am not trying to convince anyone about Rand, don't lump me in with Matt. This is NOT about who is right or wrong in the middle east. This is about whether the American public would allow a US president to turn a blind eye to the anililation of israel. Think about it Amy. If there is extreme distruction of arab cities and nuclear fallout, it will be made sure that the the US president takes the blame by the media for allowing things to escalate to nuclear war. On top of the cities being nuked ALL the oil fields would be nuked as well. Gasoline $20 bucks a gallon, who takes the blame? That is not how I want it to be, it is however how the political world is. How best to deal with it?

If Rand will be locked into acting certain ways as president, what's the point of putting him there?

[69360]

There's no other way to win your presidency but to hold that view,apparently.

Realistically, no there is not. Considering that the current and potential future makeups of congress would take that position anyway, might as well make a truthful statement like "an attack on Israel is an attack on the US". Because that's what would happen and you preserve your viability as a candidate.

[69360]

If Rand will be locked into acting certain ways as president, what's the point of putting him there?

The president doesn't just deal with one issue. Lots of other things could be fixed and prevented.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Realistically, no there is not. Considering that the current and potential future makeups of congress would take that position anyway, might as well make a truthful statement like "an attack on Israel is an attack on the US". Because that's what would happen and you preserve your viability as a candidate.

Rand isn't stating what will happen. In his own words, that is what should happen.


The president doesn't just deal with one issue. Lots of other things could be fixed and prevented.

If he won't buck the establishment on Israel, why would he buck the establishment on the Department of Education? Medicare? Social Security? Defense spending? And on?

[klamath]

It'd be nice to have a 21st century voting system to tally votes for war.
Do you really think the American people wouldn't be influenced to intervene by the media we have today?

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

Is Israel been officially recognized as a new state of the union? If not, we have no legal obligation to defend them. Period.

[FSP-Rebel]

People are forgetting that Rand had already shown signs of strength in terms of diplomacy during his recent trip over there. This latest comment causing acid reflux is purely red meat for evangelicals. Rand is interested in helping propose solutions that would better the lot of all countries in that region. Winding down the wars once and for all plus staying out of these internal civil wars would go a long way in reconciling our past foreign policy that showcased an overly aggressive behavior.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh whatever. You all need to relax about this. Rand just stated the truth that will keep him viable.

Last time I checked congress has the power to declare war, not the president.

http://www.gifflix.com/files/463298a9fab9.gif

Oh...wait.

Were you serious?

[acptulsa]

If he won't buck the establishment on Israel, why would he buck the establishment on the Department of Education? Medicare? Social Security? Defense spending? And on?

How is he not bucking the establishment? Like it or not, a lot of people in this nation feel, for whatever misguided reasons, that Israel's security is important. If the man can safeguard it from attack by means of a simple threat, why not make it? Because there's no voice in this Republic in favor of doing so? Get real.

Rand wants to end foreign aid to Israel, but wants to end their aid after he ends aid to all their enemies. Most American voters would agree with this reasonable position. As for an attack on Israel, when was the last time it happened? Is this an imminent threat?


http://www.gifflix.com/files/463298a9fab9.gif

Oh...wait.

Were you serious?

Sure. Just because Congress has become somewhat unnecessary to the process of getting our military industrial complex in the middle of every mess they can find (or create) surely doesn't mean that Congress is ignorant that they actually have the power, or afraid to exercise it.

And if we hire Rand Paul as a Constitutionalist president, he'd have to listen to them, wouldn't he? You don't ask a Constitutionalist to do anything other than what Ron Paul promised--'If Congress delcares war I'll win it by the most expeditious means possible.'

Or words to that effect.

[klamath]

Is Israel been officially recognized as a new state of the union? If not, we have no legal obligation to defend them. Period. That is not the point. The point is what really would happen in the world we have today if we managed to squeak a non intervention president in?

[kcchiefs6465]

Realistically, no there is not. Considering that the current and potential future makeups of congress would take that position anyway, might as well make a truthful statement like "an attack on Israel is an attack on the US". Because that's what would happen and you preserve your viability as a candidate.
There needs to be a regurgitating shit vomiting smiley. Or at the very least a shaking it's head smiley. I am not voting for another person who does not unequivocally state that we are broke, the dollar is about as good as tissue paper, and that Israel is a big girl, when they bomb scientists for example, they can get bombed. (For all I care) Cause and effect would be a good first lesson. The more I think about this the more disgusted I get. I could not give a fuck less about winning a popularity contest if the mindset of the people doesn't start to change. (And the way to change the minds of the people is to explain these things to them. Matter of fact, I really wish someone, HOPEFULLY YOU TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF COLLINS, SINCE YOU ARE ON THE UP AND UP, would ask Rand Paul if he would attack Iran to "prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons." Follow up the question with, 'even if Israel urged you to?' His answer would solidify my vote one way or the other.)

[Feeding the Abscess]

People are forgetting that Rand had already shown signs of strength in terms of diplomacy during his recent trip over there. This latest comment causing acid reflux is purely red meat for evangelicals. Rand is interested in helping propose solutions that would better the lot of all countries in that region. Winding down the wars once and for all plus staying out of these internal civil wars would go a long way in reconciling our past foreign policy that showcased an overly aggressive behavior.

Telling Palestinian leaders that they have to agree to talks without preconditions (specifically, Israel stopping annexation of Palestine) or face sanctions is not bettering their lot or staying out of internal affairs.

[Anti Federalist]

Face it, Rand is "maturing" nicely in his position.

He'll season into an established political figure and probably have a long career in politics.

He'll become (or has become) a "Jim DeMint" or "Dick Armey" or "Bob Barr" type of politician.

Certainly better than a Lindsey Graham, Joe Leiberman or Kelly Ayotte, but nothing that will excite me, make me donate and give up time for.

Why?

Because all he'll do is play the game and kick the can a little further down the road.

Have fun with that, wish you all the best, and I'll probably vote for him in 2016, if I bother to vote, but that will be about it.

[kcchiefs6465]

Do you really think the American people wouldn't be influenced to intervene by the media we have today?
Which is exactly why we need a STATESMAN who would cut through all the propaganda and bullshit to tell the American people what really is at stake. Not continue spewing the same nauseating statements of, 'an attack on Israel is an attack on us.' Umm, with all due respect Rand, no the fuck it's not.

[amy31416]

I understand the issues, and I understand why Ron would have never won the presidency. As I said, I will likely vote for Rand and hope that the political environment in this country starts to favor our outlook, so people like Rand/Amash and others become more the norm than the exception.

It's just that here, on this forum, it's unwise to argue for anti-interventionism using interventionism. If Israel does get involved in a war, it's almost 100% assured that our congress will vote to go to war, the president's opinion will not matter. So really, this whole point is moot, and what I really dislike is all the posts where the Rand side thinks that other people just "don't get it."

I get it. I get that there's a possibility of Rand being a good president, it's not assured--but it's the best shot this country's got. I also understand other people who are frustrated and won't support Rand, despite many of the good fights that Rand has engaged in.

So what this comes down to, for me, is that people who defend Rand when he makes statements that are in opposition to most of our deeply held ethical views--they should not use weird twists of logic to do so and try to "fool us" into justifying it and pretending that it's okay. I usually keep my mouth shut because I "get" both views, and I respect most of the people on both "sides."

That said, I don't dislike the OP, I just dislike the strategy to gain more support.

[klamath]

How is he not bucking the establishment? Like it or not, a lot of people in this nation feel, for whatever misguided reasons, that Israel's security is important. If the man can safeguard it from attack by means of a simple threat, why not make it? Because there's no voice in this Republic in favor of doing so? Get real.

Rand wants to end foreign aid to Israel, but wants to end their aid after he ends aid to all their enemies. Most American voters would agree with this reasonable position. As for an attack on Israel, when was the last time it happened? Is this an imminent threat? I think that is what it boils down to. If you could reasonably say that the arabs and israelis would not go to war then there was no need to make that kind of statement. If on the other hand....?

[FSP-Rebel]

Telling Palestinian leaders that they have to agree to talks without preconditions (specifically, Israel stopping annexation of Palestine) or face sanctions is not bettering their lot or staying out of internal affairs.
From what I read, it didn't appear that this was completely one sided and that these Palestinian leaders were upset with him over some stance. I find it hard to believe that he believes that pushing a status quo position will improve conditions. At that point, what would talking really do in the scheme of things.

[JoshLowry]

Do you really think the American people wouldn't be influenced to intervene by the media we have today?

I was going to add for anything to really matter we need a news organization that can be trusted.

With the number of unemployed yet savvy individuals here, we could start our own outfit.

It's a gaping hole that is dying to be filled and whoever does it properly will be rewarded handsomely.

[acptulsa]

Face it, Rand is "maturing" nicely in his position.

Seems to be. But does that mean he's selling out? Or that he's simply bowing to an ancient American political tradition--making promises you're highly unlikely to have to keep?

Whether we get him the White House or not, time will tell. Even if we don't, his Senate record will eventually tell. But I don't blame him for not trying to win support by being a lightning rod, the way his father did. Mainly because it didn't work.

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

That is not the point. The point is what really would happen in the world we have today if we managed to squeak a non intervention president in?

Doesn't matter what happens. They're a sovereign nation, are they not? Yes, if it erupts into war, that's unfortunate. But, it's their own responsibility.

[amy31416]

I am not trying to convince anyone about Rand, don't lump me in with Matt. This is NOT about who is right or wrong in the middle east. This is about whether the American public would allow a US president to turn a blind eye to the anililation of israel. Think about it Amy. If there is extreme distruction of arab cities and nuclear fallout, it will be made sure that the the US president takes the blame by the media for allowing things to escalate to nuclear war. On top of the cities being nuked ALL the oil fields would be nuked as well. Gasoline $20 bucks a gallon, who takes the blame? That is not how I want it to be, it is however how the political world is. How best to deal with it?

All I'm trying to do is stop the furthering of the schism in this movement, whether Rand gets elected or not, if Israel attacks or gets attacked, we'll be involved. What is annoying is being talked down to (by Matt and his ilk), or statements that have to use strange twists of logic and jump through hoops in order to "herd us cats."

Make sense?

[kcchiefs6465]

Doesn't matter what happens. They're a sovereign nation, are they not? Yes, if it erupts into war, that's unfortunate. But, it's their own responsibility.
Not to mention that they would probably be more reasonable if they did not have us backing them up. There would actually be an incentive to work these matters out. We are actually hindering Israeli progress. Anyone who considers Israel a friend should realize this. It would be in Israel's best interest that we quit meddling in their affairs and quit giving money out like it's candy. (To them and their enemies)

[klamath]

I understand the issues, and I understand why Ron would have never won the presidency. As I said, I will likely vote for Rand and hope that the political environment in this country starts to favor our outlook, so people like Rand/Amash and others become more the norm than the exception.

It's just that here, on this forum, it's unwise to argue for anti-interventionism using interventionism. If Israel does get involved in a war, it's almost 100% assured that our congress will vote to go to war, the president's opinion will not matter. So really, this whole point is moot, and what I really dislike is all the posts where the Rand side thinks that other people just "don't get it."

I get it. I get that there's a possibility of Rand being a good president, it's not assured--but it's the best shot this country's got. I also understand other people who are frustrated and won't support Rand, despite many of the good fights that Rand has engaged in.

So what this comes down to, for me, is that people who defend Rand when he makes statements that are in opposition to most of our deeply held ethical views--they should not use weird twists of logic to do so and try to "fool us" into justifying it and pretending that it's okay. I usually keep my mouth shut because I "get" both views, and I respect most of the people on both "sides."

That said, I don't dislike the OP, I just dislike the strategy to gain more support. I agree with you that the "You don't get it" is getting a little strong. Nobody knows what Rand is really thinking and I think a lot of us are trying to find out. I do not have huge enthusiasm for Rand like I had for Ron in the begining and honestly I can't say for sure I will diffinately vote for him. Unfortunately I feel Ron let me down in a lot of areas, and don't think I would even vote for him again. Reality can strike a big blow to ones face.

[phill4paul]

All I'm trying to do is stop the furthering of the schism in this movement, whether Rand gets elected or not, if Israel attacks or gets attacked, we'll be involved. What is annoying is being talked down to (by Matt and his ilk), or statements that have to use strange twists of logic and jump through hoops in order to "herd us cats."

Make sense?

I remember people saying, in '08 and '12, how they liked much of what Ron was about and his voting record but that some of his supporters were such vehement assholes that there was no way they would vote for him.

I believe I understand now what they were saying then.

[klamath]

Doesn't matter what happens. They're a sovereign nation, are they not? Yes, if it erupts into war, that's unfortunate. But, it's their own responsibility.
Yes but what do you do about what happens in our country when it does? That is the question.

[sailingaway]

I remember people saying, in '08 and '12, how they liked much of what Ron was about and his voting record but that his supporters were such vehement assholes that there was no way they would vote for him.

I believe I understand now what they were saying then.

that is the second time you've used that same phrase to call people assholes for their views. Please stop.

[acptulsa]

What is annoying is being talked down to (by Matt and his ilk), or statements that have to use strange twists of logic and jump through hoops in order to "herd us cats."

Ah well. The more they make fools of themselves, the more likely it is that Rand will limit his selections for his presidential campaign to people of competence. And that will be an improvement.

[phill4paul]

that is the second time you've used that same phrase to call people assholes for their views. Please stop.

I didn't see much griping by mods when people within the Libertarian party were accused of supporting a party whose agenda was nothing more than smoking dope and promoting child/adult sex. Or when others were saying that those in the LP contributed nothing of value to the RP campaign. I'll stand by my assertion.

ETA: However, in the interest of being P.C. I will edit in two words to my posts.

[amy31416]

I agree with you that the "You don't get it" is getting a little strong. Nobody knows what Rand is really thinking and I think a lot of us are trying to find out. I do not have huge enthusiasm for Rand like I had for Ron in the begining and honestly I can't say for sure I will diffinately vote for him. Unfortunately I feel Ron let me down in a lot of areas, and don't think I would even vote for him again. Reality can strike a big blow to ones face.

We have a hell of a lot in common, as I thought. It's a tough slog. Personally, I think the most valuable "win" for this movement is that many of us are still here trying to turn things around. +rep to the forum. :)

[sailingaway]

I didn't see much griping by mods when people within the Libertarian party were accused of supporting a party whose agenda was nothing more than smoking dope and promoting child/adult sex. Or when others were saying that those in the LP contributed nothing of value to the RP campaign. I'll stand by my assertion.

Actually, when I saw those with specific direction towards a poster, I made the same kind of comment, or deleted posts or whatever. I don't see all posts and when personal attacks are flying in all directions sometimes I move a thread to h/t or the vent instead. But no one attacked you here, or in the other place you just used the same language. Personal attacks are against TOS, and there are a lot of ways to oppose a position without attacking the person posting it.

[phill4paul]

Actually, when I saw those with specific direction towards a poster, I made the same kind of comment, or deleted posts or whatever. I don't see all posts and when personal attacks are flying in all directions sometimes I move a thread to h/t or the vent instead. But no one attacked you here, or in the other place you just used the same language. Personal attacks are against TOS, and there are a lot of ways to oppose a position without attacking the person posting it.

I have edited my posts for clarity. Without naming names the assholes will know who they are.

[klamath]

I was going to add for anything to really matter we need a news organization that can be trusted.

With the number of unemployed yet savvy individuals here, we could start our own outfit.

It's a gaping hole that is dying to be filled and whoever does it properly will be rewarded handsomely. I agree. No matter what you think of Fox, murdock saw a huge market for partisan republican viewers back in the early days as all the other media was democratically slanted at the time. Start a media network that covers its own angle for a noninterventist libertarian republican angle and the audience would be there.

[Anti Federalist]

Mainly because it didn't work.

That would all hinge on how you define "working".

In the cesspit that is the District of Calamity, I contend that nothing will work any longer, that no matter what happens, the system, as it stands, is irrevocably broken.

That regardless of what person holds a position, in the end, nothing much good will come of it, and at the end of that person's term, "We the People" will be less free and have less liberty.

This train wreck is unstoppable, AFAIC.

Ron Paul "won" by simply showing to millions of people that we, all of us, could be more and we could do so by just being free.

He "won" when a woman came up to me at North Church in Boston yesterday, asked if was "knowledgeable" on the history of what happened here and wanted to ask a question, and then noticed my "Ron Paul was Right" button on my duster.

She, literally, got a little misty eyed and said, "Oh my god, he was, and is. Thank you so much for fighting for him and what he stands for!"

That's winning.

[jcannon98188]

I was going to add for anything to really matter we need a news organization that can be trusted.

With the number of unemployed yet savvy individuals here, we could start our own outfit.

It's a gaping hole that is dying to be filled and whoever does it properly will be rewarded handsomely.

As a unemployed yet savvy individual, I would totally assist in whatever way possible to get this going.

[Brett85]

Someone on Facebook is saying that the clip of Rand was cut off, which takes his comment out of context. This is what the person wrote:

"Except no one is reading the rest of Rand Paul's quote to the DC. The DC cut off the quote halfway. He went on to say that this is a more effective deterrent for war than sending F-16s to both Egypt and Israel sparking an arms race."

[klamath]

I present exibit B.


International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Sunday with solemn prayers and the now oft-repeated warnings to never let such horrors happen again.
http://news.yahoo.com/holocaust-victims-mourned-auschwitz-beyond-140508498.html

[TheGrinch]

Someone on Facebook is saying that the clip of Rand was cut off, which takes his comment out of context. This is what the person wrote:

"Except no one is reading the rest of Rand Paul's quote to the DC. The DC cut off the quote halfway. He went on to say that this is a more effective deterrent for war than sending F-16s to both Egypt and Israel sparking an arms race."

Wait, the media took a quote out of context to paint a controversy-laden narrative? Whoda thunkit?

Obviously though even the full quote doesn't make us all warm and fuzzy as non-interventionalists, but I'd like to think he doesn't want to fall into the trap of being painted as anti-Israel or weak on defense. I still would like some clarification from him...

[JK/SEA]

This very well could be a moot issue soon.

[Matt Collins]

Rand Paul's Chief Of Staff Clarifies Rand's Recent Israel Comments -

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?402617-Rand-Paul-s-Chief-Of-Staff-Responds-To-Rand-s-Israel-Comments

[FSP-Rebel]

Someone on Facebook is saying that the clip of Rand was cut off, which takes his comment out of context. This is what the person wrote:

"Except no one is reading the rest of Rand Paul's quote to the DC. The DC cut off the quote halfway. He went on to say that this is a more effective deterrent for war than sending F-16s to both Egypt and Israel sparking an arms race."
Those that have an anti-Rand agenda would overlook this anyway.

[69360]

Rand isn't stating what will happen. In his own words, that is what should happen.



If he won't buck the establishment on Israel, why would he buck the establishment on the Department of Education? Medicare? Social Security? Defense spending? And on?

He's stating what would happen, his chief of staff already clarified it.

This has been twisted all around just like when he warned than sanctions would be imposed to enemies of Israel on his trip there. He didn't say HE was for sanctions, just that they are the reality of the situation.

[Anti Federalist]

I present exibit B.


International Holocaust Remembrance Day on Sunday with solemn prayers and the now oft-repeated warnings to never let such horrors happen again

http://news.yahoo.com/holocaust-victims-mourned-auschwitz-beyond-140508498.html

A new Holocaust is set to happen right here, basically at any minute.

The machinery is all in place, the laws are on the books.

Yet you never fail to mock and castigate anybody that even hints at rising up, in arms and righteous fury, to stop it, now, before it happens.

But we are supposed to leap in a second's notice and spill blood for Israel so that they don't have another Holocaust?

[klamath]

A new Holocaust is set to happen right here, basically at any minute.

The machinery is all in place, the laws are on the books.

Yet you never fail to mock and castigate anybody that even hints at rising up, in arms and righteous fury, to stop it, now, before it happens.

But we are supposed to leap in a second's notice and spill blood for Israel so that they don't have another Holocaust?
No I raise up when someone says they will kill IRS agents, the janitors in the building AND their children. When I hear people say that I really really DON"T believe they are trying to stop any violence. They are looking forward to violence.
And on top of that you totally misread what exibit B is about.

[Anti Federalist]

No I raise up when someone says they will kill IRS agents, the janitors in the building AND the their children. When I hear people say that I really really DON"T believe they are trying to stop any violence. They are looking forward to violence.
And on top of that you totally misread what exibit B is about.

Well, OK, I'll buy that, if I mistook what you were trying to say, I'll cheerfully retract my comment.

But just so we're straight, if, in rising up in arms and righteous anger, against a Holocaust that, IMO is right at our door, if every attempt is honestly made to avoid "collateral damage", then we're OK?

[LibertyEagle]

I didn't see much griping by mods when people within the Libertarian party were accused of supporting a party whose agenda was nothing more than smoking dope and promoting child/adult sex. Or when others were saying that those in the LP contributed nothing of value to the RP campaign. I'll stand by my assertion.

ETA: However, in the interest of being P.C. I will edit in two words to my posts.

I never said that was all the Libertarian Party was about. The point is that the Libertarian Party has their bad parts too, just like all the rest.

[RonPaul25]

I am through with Rand. He is a coward. He has no courage or principles. He's a shill for Israel and the neo-cons. He is no different than your typical Republican.

[LibertyEagle]

I am through with Rand. He is a coward. He has no courage or principles. He's a shill for Israel and the neo-cons. He is no different than your typical Republican.

Oh goody. Another person who wasn't here for either of Ron's campaigns, but is here now to bash Rand. :rolleyes:

[RonPaul25]

Oh goody. Another person who wasn't here for either of Ron's campaigns, but is here now to bash Rand. :rolleyes:

I can assure you I gave more money to Ron's campaigns than 99% of the people on this forum. Ron had principles, Rand does not.

[JoshLowry]

Oh goody. Another person who wasn't here for either of Ron's campaigns, but is here now to bash Rand. :rolleyes:

Nancy, stop taking the bait.

[klamath]

Well, OK, I'll buy that, if I mistook what you were trying to say, I'll cheerfully retract my comment.

But just so we're straight, if, in rising up in arms and righteous anger, against a Holocaust that, IMO is right at our door, if every attempt is honestly made to avoid "collateral damage", then we're OK?
70 years of exibit B's" handed out to the American people makes a strong support base.....

We are Ok when EVERY ATTEMPT to avoid the NEED to raise up against a holocaust is made.

[LibertyEagle]

The forum needs a good de-lousing.

[RonPaul25]

Somebody posted this

It just seems to me like Rand is trying too hard to please everyone here, and in the end will end up without a base at all. If you read through the comments on Facebook there are plenty of Republicans who are mad at him for his anti war post. So now he has some neo-conservative Republican voters mad at him for his foreign policy views, and he has people in the liberty movement mad at him for his foreign policy views. He needs to be much more consistent and actually pick a side.

I agree with this. I just wish the guy would be consistent.

[Feeding the Abscess]

He's stating what would happen, his chief of staff already clarified it.

This has been twisted all around just like when he warned than sanctions would be imposed to enemies of Israel on his trip there. He didn't say HE was for sanctions, just that they are the reality of the situation.

He didn't say that that was what would happen. In his own words, he said it is what should happen.

I'll keep repeating it until that sinks in.

[Pisces]

He didn't say that that was what would happen. In his own words, he said it is what should happen.

I'll keep repeating it until that sinks in.

Were you there? You have no idea what was said at that meeting.

[Anti Federalist]

We are Ok when EVERY ATTEMPT to avoid the NEED to raise up against a holocaust is made.

Then we are in complete agreement.

In fact, I will go one step further, I will not ever strike first.

But I will not comply.

[RickyJ]

Oh whatever. You all need to relax about this. Rand just stated the truth that will keep him viable. Last time I checked congress has the power to declare war, not the president. If a country attacks Israel congress will do something no matter who is president and what party they come from, it's just the way it is.

What else will he have to do to be "viable?" Kiss the ground Israelis walk on? Sorry, but we need a real leader, not another ass kisser.

[radiofriendly]

For those who haven't seen it, Paul's office clarified the statement:

"The questions asked of Senator Paul in recent days were regarding an unprovoked attack on Israel. In one case the question was regarding a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv from another state.

Senator Paul believes that if another country launched an all out war with Israel that the United States should and would assist them in some way.

He was not discussing any offensive or preemptive war, nor was he describing the skirmishes that come up from time to time in that region. He was discussing a hypothetical all-out attack on Israel by her neighbors.

Of course, he also fully believes that the power to declare war and therefore commit the United States to a war lies with Congress.

This is a point he has fought for often in the Senate. So he was speaking as one person. He does not believe the President has or would have the authority to commit the United States forces to defending Israel without the authorization of Congress.

Finally, if this is indeed the likely action of the United States in the event of an attack, stating so in advance is likely to lead to a smaller chance of such attack ever taking place, not greater as some have asserted. Senator Paul never has war as a goal or a preferred policy, only as a last resort."

Doug Stafford

[RickyJ]

That's true. But the OP is a study in something that holds us back because most voters out there don't think we have it. And that is, a real exercise in 'how do we get from here to where we should be'? Ron Paul understood that, which is why we didn't have to argue the virtues of pulling the Social Security rug out from under millions of people who had no choice but to pay into it, and now have little else to rely on.

It makes no sense to the idealogues, but it's true nonetheless--no matter how good a world we could ultimately produce, if we seem dead set on doing what's right no matter what happens in the process we won't win any elections.

Winning the election won't mean much if Rand does everything he's told to do. People need to hear the truth, winning a fixed election, and if you think the presidential elections aren't fixed then you haven't paying attention, won't mean squat if we end up with another "yes" man to the elite!

[fr33]

When a senator says something, he theoretically is not only representing people but is also bound by his own moral code.

The fact is that when a US senator says that an attack on Israel is an attack on the US; that speech legitimizes the next death of a Palestinian by the hands of the Israeli police state. Funded by yours truly. No efforts have been made to halt the seizure of private property. The fascism marches on. An attack on Israel is not an attack on me. It is what most of us call justice.

[Neil Desmond]

Here are mine:

1. Last time I checked, Israel was not part of our country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States); how is an attack on Israel an attack on us?
2. Let's suppose a country such as France or England attacked Israel; would he say that such an attack by France or England on Israel is an attack on us?
3. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. I support Ron Paul because I'm confident that he supports the Constitution; does Rand Paul also support the Constitution?

[69360]

He didn't say that that was what would happen. In his own words, he said it is what should happen.

I'll keep repeating it until that sinks in.

It's not going to sink in because you're wrong. It simple terms you might understand, he said "hey if you guys in Iran and Palestine keep this up, this is what the US government will do to you" That's not a threat, it's political reality that he has no control over.


What else will he have to do to be "viable?" Kiss the ground Israelis walk on? Sorry, but we need a real leader, not another ass kisser.

He's in a good place right now. he shouldn't have to do anything else in the foreseeable future.

[kathy88]

For those who haven't seen it, Paul's office clarified the statement:

"The questions asked of Senator Paul in recent days were regarding an unprovoked attack on Israel. In one case the question was regarding a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv from another state.

Senator Paul believes that if another country launched an all out war with Israel that the United States should and would assist them in some way.

He was not discussing any offensive or preemptive war, nor was he describing the skirmishes that come up from time to time in that region. He was discussing a hypothetical all-out attack on Israel by her neighbors.

Of course, he also fully believes that the power to declare war and therefore commit the United States to a war lies with Congress.

This is a point he has fought for often in the Senate. So he was speaking as one person. He does not believe the President has or would have the authority to commit the United States forces to defending Israel without the authorization of Congress.

Finally, if this is indeed the likely action of the United States in the event of an attack, stating so in advance is likely to lead to a smaller chance of such attack ever taking place, not greater as some have asserted. Senator Paul never has war as a goal or a preferred policy, only as a last resort."

Doug Stafford

How could we have not seen it? Collins posted it 18 times.

[LibertyEagle]

How could we have not seen it? Collins posted it 18 times.

I would think he pasted it in every thread that was started to go apeshit on this topic. If that is what he did, good for him.

[dinosaur]

Here are mine:

1. Last time I checked, Israel was not part of our country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States); how is an attack on Israel an attack on us?
2. Let's suppose a country such as France or England attacked Israel; would he say that such an attack by France or England on Israel is an attack on us?
3. Rand Paul is not Ron Paul. I support Ron Paul because I'm confident that he supports the Constitution; does Rand Paul also support the Constitution?

Did you see Rand taking Kerry to task over unconstitutional wars? If there is an Iran against Israel attack, I want a constitutionalist in ofice who will force congress, and the nation, to have a proper debate about it.

[Matt Collins]

I would think he pasted it in every thread that was started to go apeshit on this topic. If that is what he did, good for him.Yeah pretty much. Whenever I see something I want to post I try and put it in all of the relevant threads. I'm certainly not bitching about the moderation, but if I ran the place, I'd be consolidating a lot more threads together to prevent redundancy. But that's just my personal preference and is not a judgement on management around here.

[unknown]

I was very disappointed with his statement.

I can only hope that its a political move to gain favor with the establishment.

Not sure why he cant just say something like: "izrael has always been an ally but I have to focus on America. Our nation is on the verge of collapse"...