View Full Version : EPJ: Neocons Reel In The Ron Paulians
Sola_Fide
03-09-2013, 04:45 PM
I can't find anything I really disagree with in this article...
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/neocons-reel-in-ron-paulians.html?m=1
compromise
03-09-2013, 04:55 PM
I can't find anything I agree with. I'm starting to think Wenzel is actually a secret neo-con who wants Rand to fail by turning the liberty movement against him.
acptulsa
03-09-2013, 04:57 PM
I can't find anything I really disagree with in this article...
Well, that's very enlightening.
Despite the relentless blackouts and censorship of Ron Paul just weeks before, the RNC Chairman was now standing with open arms:
“We would be fools not to welcome in the liberty movement in this party.”
Of course it's ok to welcome Ron Paul supporters now...Ron Paul is no longer a political threat. Having him in power would've been a huge problem. But his supporters are not him. They are just numbers...and numbers you'll need to win the election game in 2016.
After control is achieved, you can throw those gullible Ron Paul supporters overboard and get back to running the world the right way.
Who could possibly be better than Rand Paul to deliver the votes needed for the Neocons. What a fortunate situation. Rand, over time, has consistently proved to the Neocons that he's not his Dad and can be trusted. When it comes to foreign policy, he's as flexible as silly putty.
That's like music to Neocon ears.
Then comes the "spontaneous" filibuster.
National Stage...everyone watching for hours on end.
In action (i.e., the only thing that counts) the filibuster accomplished absolutely nothing. But the Neocons we're all cheers (Rubin, Krauthammer, Limbaugh, Beck). Buzzfeed even put together a list of just about every other bad guy that got on board.
Sadly, a large number of Ron Paul supporters took the bait...It proved too hard to resist. You'd have to be for Obama droning you to resist, right?
Yet nothing was done. Brennan was sworn in swiftly the very next day, and The White House gave itself enough leeway to drive a Homeland Security tank through with its "letter".
In other words, the ship is still on course. It just now has a bunch of Ron Paul passengers on board! Talk about a unified Republican Party is everywhere.
Then why is Billy Kristol crapping his pants?
So, was Rand trolling the liberals? Or trolling us? How does he figure nothing got done when, after stalling for twenty-four hours, the Obama Administration grudgingly promised to uphold our Constitutional guarantee of due process? This has the potential to do as much for us as Dubya's Daddy's, 'Read my lips--no new taxes.' As much, did I say? Make that far, far more.
Nothing to disagree with, eh? So, you figure Rand Paul stood there thirteen hours and rocked the snot out of the boat just for grins and to give his buddy Cruz a chance to talk about the Alamo?
GTFO
Days like this seperate once and for all the souls from the trolls. Well, guess what, troll. The damage Rand Paul did to the Establishment Cause cannot be undone.
And may God have mercy on all your souls.
cocrehamster
03-09-2013, 05:01 PM
I do. Rand focused on one issue, something of a starting point to actually begin a discussion on these things. He also implied his opinion and said that a debate needed to be had on on similar issues. Rand wanted to drive one point home and get people to start to actually think and start questioning things. We all can follow when Ron calls out every fucked up thing that's going on because we're familiar with it and have actually thought about it. I wonder what % of americans are even aware of the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA, or have considered its implications.
itshappening
03-09-2013, 05:02 PM
I saw this and Rossini has it wrong.
Rand is reeling them in but the hardcore neocons and paid agitators for the defense industry like Kristol are not falling for it. Rubin has to be a bit more fair and balanced from her perch in the Washington Post.
itshappening
03-09-2013, 05:05 PM
re "nothing was done, hollow victory" ... this is another lie they're spreading.
The reality is nothing will ever be done until a libertarian has the presidency and the levers of power. How you get there is to build your name and have yourself plastered all over the media. Rand isn't stupid enough to think he's got some massive victory but he'd look stupid if he continued after Holders statement and would have "lost" because they clearly had the votes.
Better to declare a victory - no matter how hollow- and then do the honorable thing by allowing unanimous consent and the vote to proceed which is what Rand did. It also drives home that Rand "let" the vote proceed and shows that he's the boss here and that the filibuster succeeded and the mighty administration succumbed. It's political theater but it's spectacular and the media love it.
sailingaway
03-09-2013, 05:08 PM
I agree that Holder's letter to Rand was a win in that the white house had to focus on this and defuse it more than in substance (I posted a NYTimes article on what the White House means by 'combatants') but just because Rand didn't eliminate drones from the face of the earth doesn't mean what he did wasn't a great thing in showing the unpopularity of this issue. They immediately removed drone info from the gov webpage, and will have to take the opposition into account. People won't be able to ignore their votes for expanding this stuff pretending they don't know anyone cares.
I do think it is possible Rand may have decided where he can push without major political repurcusions and is going all out in that one area, and isn't in other areas, and if that is so, I am not thrilled with that aspect of it. However, it is an area that is very important to me, is very underrepresented, and I am grateful for it, even if it were no more than what Wyden does on civil liberties. Speaking of which, I think very highly of how Wyden uses his position on the intelligence committee to let us know of problems we wouldn't otherwise even know existed, although as an overall candidate I have problems with him. Rand is better than that, obviously, and I see articles like this as over the top, that they can't even give him credit for doing something terrific when he does. It hurts their credibility and appearance of objectivity, imho.
FSP-Rebel
03-09-2013, 05:11 PM
This guy is nuts to think we vote for their people. If they aren't remotely conservative be it for whatever office I pass or protest it. Dude's also not paying attention to the shifting allegiances in many state and local parties around the country.
Sola_Fide
03-09-2013, 05:22 PM
Well, that's very enlightening.
Then why is Billy Kristol crapping his pants?
So, was Rand trolling the liberals? Or trolling us? How does he figure nothing got done when, after stalling for twenty-four hours, the Obama Administration grudgingly promised to uphold our Constitutional guarantee of due process? This has the potential to do as much for us as Dubya's Daddy's, 'Read my lips--no new taxes.'
Nothing to disagree with, eh? So, you figure Rand Paul stood there thirteen hours and rocked the snot out of the boat just for grins and to give his buddy Cruz a chance to talk about the Alamo?
GTFO
Days like this seperate once and for all the souls from the trolls. Well, guess what, troll. The damage Rand Paul did to the Establishment Cause cannot be undone.
And may God have mercy on all your souls.
Well, I appreciate Rand's efforts, but they are only half-efforts. For example, why didn't Rand argue against all drone warfare everywhere? How can a person think he can be moral while supporting our murder of innocent children? And then Rand says ridiculous things like "our troops are over there fighting for the Bill of Rights". Um....what? I can't endorse these things. It's immoral.
deadfish
03-09-2013, 05:23 PM
Yeah, thanks to the filibuster I'm totally a big supporter of Rubio now.
McCain and Graham are starting to look really good.
....What?! No!
Brian4Liberty
03-09-2013, 05:25 PM
So let's summarize. Rand gave the hardcore neo-conservatives fits, the hardcore Marxists fits (or do I repeat myself?) and the hard-core anarcho-libertarians are saying it's a trap. At the same time, Rand gained the support and respect of the vast majority of the right, some on the left, and McCain and Graham have been exposed to the masses as the totalitarian, Constitution-shredding, Trotskyite Marxists that they really are. Sounds like winning to me.
sailingaway
03-09-2013, 05:31 PM
We do have to be careful how this is spun, since there are groups that want drones gone - in order to replace them with more boots on the ground and heavier military equipment for MIC. Some will try to use this for that, but that just means we have to be careful about what is the problem here. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/08/why_the_hawks_love_rand_paul_all_of_a_sudden.html
But no matter what we do, they try to spin it their way.
anaconda
03-09-2013, 05:33 PM
The author of the article does not understand that Ron Paul supporters will be unlikely to vote for anyone who is not Rand, and that applauding the stand Rand took on Wednesday is in no way an endorsement of the current Republican Party. The author does not understand that the litmus test for the Ron Paul supporters sets the bar very high and that Ron Paul supporters are very adept at spotting imposters. If anything, the filibuster served to deepen divide with the old GOP corporatists. The article has problems with unfounded premises and illogical conclusions.
anaconda
03-09-2013, 05:36 PM
So let's summarize. Rand gave the hardcore neo-conservatives fits, the hardcore Marxists fits (or do I repeat myself?) and the hard-core anarcho-libertarians are saying it's a trap. At the same time, Rand gained the support and respect of the vast majority of the right, some on the left, and McCain and Graham have been exposed to the masses as the totalitarian, Constitution-shredding, Trotskyite Marxists that they really are. Sounds like winning to me.
Great summary!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WCetKajyUNc/Tut0fEYQv_I/AAAAAAAABbw/XoA0LHVyuRY/s1600/winning-charlie-sheen-sweatshirts_design.png
itshappening
03-09-2013, 05:39 PM
The Lew Rockwell crowd don't get it. They never have. Indeed, they eschew politics and the GOP in general.
It's disappointing because I donate to them and think they do terrific and important work.
They're all out screaming it's a hollow victory and that what Holder released amounts to nothing.
Yes, that's true but Rand engaged in political theater and that's all he did. Getting anything out of Holder is a grand victory (for now) and has every political analyst, columnist, reporter, commentator, consultant, talk radio host and media personalities (bar paid agitators like Kristol) praising Rand Paul and discussing what happened.
They didn't make one post during the filibuster itself.
I love people like Tom Woods. I think he's an amazing historian and economist but they're lousy political analysts and commentators and should stop advising anyone who wants to be in the GOP because they just don't understand how to talk to GOP voters and Rush Limbaugh listeners.
You don't do it by insulting them or being brash like Ron. They should stick to their education mission and when it comes to politics they should endeavor to understand what exactly is going on and what Rand is up to and his larger mission.
No, he's not selling you out or becoming a Neocon with his every vote and move.
Understand that and stop being so dumb.
This applies to Raimondo and the other idiots who are lousy political analysts too,
anaconda
03-09-2013, 05:41 PM
We do have to be careful how this is spun, since there are groups that want drones gone - in order to replace them with more boots on the ground and heavier military equipment for MIC. Some will try to use this for that, but that just means we have to be careful about what is the problem here. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/08/why_the_hawks_love_rand_paul_all_of_a_sudden.html
But no matter what we do, they try to spin it their way.
Excellent observation on the potential for "boots-on-the-ground" acolytes to stoke anti-Obama drone foreign policy in an attempt to position their own form of terror and mayhem as a more viable alternative.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/01/14/283502/obama-drone-gang-neocon-battalions/
supermario21
03-09-2013, 05:47 PM
The Lew Rockwell crowd doesn't get it because they hate government altogether it seems. I follow them on twitter and one of the blog posts was "Do you hate the state?" Look, we all hate big government, but I actually want to see government changed, not just sit on a keyboard and whine about how tyrannical things are. We have a chance to continue our movement and actually get something significant done. Now is not the time to go back into the wildnerness. The neocons are on the defensive. We must keep pushing.
itshappening
03-09-2013, 05:53 PM
The Lew Rockwell crowd doesn't get it because they hate government altogether it seems. I follow them on twitter and one of the blog posts was "Do you hate the state?" Look, we all hate big government, but I actually want to see government changed, not just sit on a keyboard and whine about how tyrannical things are. We have a chance to continue our movement and actually get something significant done. Now is not the time to go back into the wildnerness. The neocons are on the defensive. We must keep pushing.
And the only way we're going to affect big change is to land the big prize: The presidency.
The Lew Rockwell people want to just secede but that's never going to happen.
They're also suspicious of Rand Paul in general and don't like the fact that he goes on Hannity and rather than challenge his statements about torture behaves himself and validates them without endorsing them.
They just dont understand how to talk to GOP voters. They don't care which is ironic as many of them worked for Ron and in Woods case advised him!
Woods is the last person I would take advice from when it comes to politics and people like Dilorenzo would prefer to tell Rush Limbaugh listeners that they're dummies rather than make them feel comfortable. Again, this is ironic considering he's a celebrated author and must know a thing or two about media appearances and being polite, cordial and persuasive.
Sometimes I think they just do it because they like to whine about the world.
dancjm
03-09-2013, 06:00 PM
Well, I appreciate Rand's efforts, but they are only half-efforts. For example, why didn't Rand argue against all drone warfare everywhere? How can a person think he can be moral while supporting our murder of innocent children? And then Rand says ridiculous things like "our troops are over there fighting for the Bill of Rights". Um....what? I can't endorse these things. It's immoral.
If Rand had been arguing for the rights of foreigners the sad fact is that both sides of the Isle would have muddied the water to talk about warzones and terrorists. Rand is against what is being done over seas with the drone program, but what he wanted to do here, to force the issue, is to use a hard example. "Tell us Mr President, how your drone logic applies to American Citizens."
The reason that this is so important, and the reason it took 13 hours (a month & 13 hours) to answer, is because once Obama concedes that, "No, Americans have the right to due process before being summarily killed", it leads to another logical question. "Do Americans have rights, but others around the world do not? O.k. Americans are protected from such things, but why only Americans?".
This was the only way to a) get the American people to think about how Drone policy may one day effect them, and b) force the Administration to admit that there are limits to it's power, and c) force Republicans to answer for what it means when they claim "America is the battlefield in the War on Terror."
Not to mention that a lot of people were not aware of how the Drone program works, for example I'm not sure how many people knew that non-combatants are being targeted and killed. They know now.
This was the way to blow this wide open, it was actually very very well done.
acptulsa
03-09-2013, 06:03 PM
Well, I appreciate Rand's efforts, but they are only half-efforts. For example, why didn't Rand argue against all drone warfare everywhere? How can a person think he can be moral while supporting our murder of innocent children? And then Rand says ridiculous things like "our troops are over there fighting for the Bill of Rights". Um....what? I can't endorse these things. It's immoral.
The man drove a wedge between the Democratic rank and file and trash like Durbin and Obama, drove a wedge between Constitution-loving Republican members of the rank and file and trash like McCain and Graham, began the process of tearing down the wall between American citizens with D's next to their names and American citizens with R's next to their names, put Limbaugh in a position where he had to say nice things about libertarianism, put Kristol in a position where he had to expose himself as a tool, got the most progressive part of the American public up in arms against their president and their favorite pundits and over to our side, and you're all opposed to it because he didn't overreach far enough to spoil the whole effort and make it all for naught? He caught the prize-winning fish and you're pissed because he didn't catch two fish on one hook?
What part of GTFO did you not understand?
The reason that this is so important, and the reason it took 13 hours (a month & 13 hours) to answer, is because once Obama concedes that, "No, Americans have the right to due process before being summarily killed", it leads to another logical question...
Plus freaking rep. If you know that, given an inch, you can take a mile, and you know they'll look like complete bastards for not giving you your inch, why in God's name would you start out by demanding a mile and getting turned down?
itshappening
03-09-2013, 06:06 PM
Rossini falls into the bracket of being a whiner.
I dont think he's ever had anything good to say about Rand. Even after an epic filibuster which has the whole country talking he'll find a negative. In this case it's just an outright distortion and a claim that Ron Paul supporters (like myself) are being fooled and reeled in by the neocons.
I mean it's just laughable and pathetic.
Does he even understand what Rand Paul is trying to achieve? Does he understand Rand isn't selling out libertarian principles with his every vote and statement but quietly advancing them in a way that the brainwashed masses are comfortable with? No, it appears not so he's just another silly hack. Like Raimondo. Unfortunately they have a loud mouth although some people think it's good for Rand to get some criticism as it serves to make him even more acceptable to the masses. So they do serve a larger purpose even though they don't know it. I find that fascinating.
acptulsa
03-09-2013, 06:10 PM
Rossini falls into the bracket of being a whiner.
I mean it's just laughable and pathetic.
Does he even understand what Rand Paul is trying to acheive? Does he understand Rand isn't selling out libertarian principles with his every vote and statement but quietly advancing them in a way that the brainwashed masses are comfortable with? No, it appears not so he's just another silly hack. Like Raimondo. Unfortunately they have a loud mouth although some people think it's good for Rand to get some criticism as it serves to make him even more acceptable to the masses. So they do serve a larger purpose even though they don't know it. I find that interesting.
Agreed, except for one thing--if you shove a clue down Raimondo's throat he has enough sense to choke on it. This character is perfectly content to spend the rest of his life suffocating on it rather than admit the clue's existence.
Brian4Liberty
03-09-2013, 06:18 PM
And the only way we're going to affect big change is to land the big prize: The presidency.
Or gain enough support in Congress that one day, Rand will be the majority leader in the Senate, and Amash in da House.
itshappening
03-09-2013, 06:21 PM
Or gain enough support in Congress that one day, Rand will be the majority leader in the Senate, and Amash in da House.
It's impossible to break the matrix of the congress and get 220 non-bought off soles elected. Much easier to focus on the presidency.
The irony is with a strong president and a powerful executive the establishment has built over decades can be used to dismantle and change a lot of things in the right hands. They will do everything to keep Rand Paul from it but they will fail - indeed they're already failing - it seems inevitable that he will be the GOP nominee to me.
Pisces
03-09-2013, 06:22 PM
Agreed, except for one thing--if you shove a clue down Raimondo's throat he has enough sense to choke on it. This character is perfectly content to spend the rest of his life suffocating on it rather than admit the clue's existence.
I agree. I wasn't happy with Raimondo but I have more respect for him because at least he's man enough to admit when he's been wrong. I don't think that Rand is above criticism but guys like Wenzel and this author just seem obsessed with trying to prove that Rand is a sellout and a traitor. Pride probably has a lot to do with it; some people can't admit they misjudged someone even if it hurts their credibility.
Bastiat's The Law
03-09-2013, 06:40 PM
This guy is nuts to think we vote for their people. If they aren't remotely conservative be it for whatever office I pass or protest it. Dude's also not paying attention to the shifting allegiances in many state and local parties around the country.
He has no idea what's actually going on.
Bastiat's The Law
03-09-2013, 06:52 PM
Or gain enough support in Congress that one day, Rand will be the majority leader in the Senate, and Amash in da House.
A perfect storm would be to add to our numbers in the House and Senate in 2014 and Rand runs in 2016 for President.
Inkblots
03-09-2013, 06:53 PM
It's obvious at this point that Wenzel falls into that small but vocal minority of the Liberty movement who have no interest in victory or even progress toward victory, and will complain loudly and continuously about those who do.
FSP-Rebel
03-09-2013, 06:54 PM
The only person of note that has indicated any understanding of what's going on is Rush and by extension, his handlers and GOP operatives. They get that Rand is hustling libertarianism to conservatives in beautiful and tasty gourmet dishes of filet mignon and there's not much they can do to curb the bases' appetite for it nor put a wrench in the articulate fashion for which it's done. #LibertyIsRising
Bastiat's The Law
03-09-2013, 06:55 PM
It's impossible to break the matrix of the congress and get 220 non-bought off soles elected. Much easier to focus on the presidency.
The irony is with a strong president and a powerful executive the establishment has built over decades can be used to dismantle and change a lot of things in the right hands. They will do everything to keep Rand Paul from it but they will fail - indeed they're already failing - it seems inevitable that he will be the GOP nominee to me.
Only 5-6 more member could've thrown a monkey wrench into the Boehnor speakership vote. We could do a lot building up a strong contingent in the House.
matt0611
03-09-2013, 07:02 PM
Rossini falls into the bracket of being a whiner.
I dont think he's ever had anything good to say about Rand. Even after an epic filibuster which has the whole country talking he'll find a negative. In this case it's just an outright distortion and a claim that Ron Paul supporters (like myself) are being fooled and reeled in by the neocons.
I mean it's just laughable and pathetic.
Does he even understand what Rand Paul is trying to achieve? Does he understand Rand isn't selling out libertarian principles with his every vote and statement but quietly advancing them in a way that the brainwashed masses are comfortable with? No, it appears not so he's just another silly hack. Like Raimondo. Unfortunately they have a loud mouth although some people think it's good for Rand to get some criticism as it serves to make him even more acceptable to the masses. So they do serve a larger purpose even though they don't know it. I find that fascinating.
Best one sentence explanation of what Rand is trying to do.
To be fair to Raimondo, he seems to be supporting Rand 100% on this and has even told Wenzel that he's wrong on this.
I thought Raimondo was just like Wenzel but in the past 48 hours he's earned a lot of respect back from me.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/03/07/standwithrand/
"Justin Raimondo @JustinRaimondo
@WenzelEconomics Bill Kristol refutes you:"
"Justin Raimondo @JustinRaimondo
@djcronin McConnel was co-opted by the Randians"
I lost a lot of respect for EPJ and Wenzel over the last few years. I understand being skeptical but this outright illogical hostility towards Rand really makes me lose respect for them.
american.swan
03-09-2013, 07:02 PM
REMEMBER there was a plan. Jefferson, Jackson... Three presidents to reign in the government. We don'thave a plan. We have Rand Paul. Paul won't be able to do it alone.
Henry Rogue
03-09-2013, 07:06 PM
I'm not concerned about Rand Paul. Even if he wasn't One Hundred percent pure, he's still a thousand times better than anyone the two parties have nominated in the past two hundred years. I'll take my chances with him unless something drastic is revealed. The US was lost incrementally, we're not going to get it back in one stroke.
Christian Liberty
03-09-2013, 07:21 PM
Well, I appreciate Rand's efforts, but they are only half-efforts. For example, why didn't Rand argue against all drone warfare everywhere? How can a person think he can be moral while supporting our murder of innocent children? And then Rand says ridiculous things like "our troops are over there fighting for the Bill of Rights". Um....what? I can't endorse these things. It's immoral.
Did Rand actually make that last statement? Ugh...
Rand doesn't actually believe that so its kind of sad that he actually has to say it. Ugh. I don't think you can win this game with integrity. Its a lose lose. I respect Rand for trying.
The Lew Rockwell crowd don't get it. They never have. Indeed, they eschew politics and the GOP in general.
It's disappointing because I donate to them and think they do terrific and important work.
They're all out screaming it's a hollow victory and that what Holder released amounts to nothing.
Yes, that's true but Rand engaged in political theater and that's all he did. Getting anything out of Holder is a grand victory (for now) and has every political analyst, columnist, reporter, commentator, consultant, talk radio host and media personalities (bar paid agitators like Kristol) praising Rand Paul and discussing what happened.
They didn't make one post during the filibuster itself.
I love people like Tom Woods. I think he's an amazing historian and economist but they're lousy political analysts and commentators and should stop advising anyone who wants to be in the GOP because they just don't understand how to talk to GOP voters and Rush Limbaugh listeners.
You don't do it by insulting them or being brash like Ron. They should stick to their education mission and when it comes to politics they should endeavor to understand what exactly is going on and what Rand is up to and his larger mission.
No, he's not selling you out or becoming a Neocon with his every vote and move.
Understand that and stop being so dumb.
This applies to Raimondo and the other idiots who are lousy political analysts too,
Not all of the Rockwell crowd is the same. I read LRC fairly regularly. Some of them are way better than others.
The Lew Rockwell crowd doesn't get it because they hate government altogether it seems. I follow them on twitter and one of the blog posts was "Do you hate the state?" Look, we all hate big government, but I actually want to see government changed, not just sit on a keyboard and whine about how tyrannical things are. We have a chance to continue our movement and actually get something significant done. Now is not the time to go back into the wildnerness. The neocons are on the defensive. We must keep pushing.
The Lew Rockwell crowd are mostly anarcho-capitalists yes. Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul aren't, but I'm not sure if any others aren't.
It's obvious at this point that Wenzel falls into that small but vocal minority of the Liberty movement who have no interest in victory or even progress toward victory, and will complain loudly and continuously about those who do.
Or maybe he just doesn't think Rand goes far enough to be worth it? If that's his position I disagree wiith him, but even I have my limits of how much I compromise. I wouldn't vote for the GOP establishment even if the alternative was worse.
I'm not concerned about Rand Paul. Even if he wasn't One Hundred percent pure, he's still a thousand times better than anyone the two parties have nominated in the past two hundred years. I'll take my chances with him unless something drastic is revealed. The US was lost incrementally, we're not going to get it back in one stroke.
Two hundred years? I'd rather John Tyler or Grover Cleveland in a heartbeat. Don't know much about Goldwater but he's probably in competition there as well. "Last fifty years" is probably more accurate.
dancjm
03-09-2013, 08:17 PM
Did Rand actually make that last statement? Ugh...
Rand doesn't actually believe that so its kind of sad that he actually has to say it.
What he is really communicating is that the U.S. commits troops to defend the U.S. and it's principles (in theory) and that, if you believe this, how can you dismantle the Bill of Rights at home?
He is deliberately coming at this from the perspective of most Americans to try to get them to understand that their own beliefs about what U.S. forces are doing overseas, are incompatible with what they are allowing to be done domestically.
It is actually a very effective method of communication.
Cowlesy
03-09-2013, 08:22 PM
Who could possibly be better than Rand Paul to deliver the votes needed for the Neocons. What a fortunate situation. Rand, over time, has consistently proved to the Neocons that he's not his Dad and can be trusted. When it comes to foreign policy, he's as flexible as silly putty.
That's like music to Neocon ears.
^That's the thesis of the article.
And for all of us who are tired of hearing it.
https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/117015214/pennSTFU.gif
itshappening
03-09-2013, 08:48 PM
^That's the thesis of the article.
And for all of us who are tired of hearing it.
https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/117015214/pennSTFU.gif
The thesis is wrong and stupid.
What is a Neocon? It's a paid agitator who wants increased defense spending and interventionism that delivers it for defense lobbyists. The defense lobbyists fund the neocon think tanks and publications ostensibly controlled by William Kristol. He's not an objective journalist but a paid agitator. It's obvious who they are. We will never, ever get their vote or earn their respect and Rand Paul doesn't expect to. All he wants to do is reach the rank and file and blow past the paid agitators to secure him the support for the presidency. Kristol can whine all he wants but he'll be irrelevant and look increasingly so.
There are no votes to be delivered to Kristol or the defense lobbyists. Rand Paul represents a massive danger to them and things like their 1.5 trillion F-35 project because when the cuts come they're going to be the ones that are made. They will fight him all the way. Ironically it's going to be people like Koch who benefit from a Rand Paul presidency due to the EPA being gutted not the defense lobbyists and their neocon publications and propaganda outfits who we dont care about. I'd rather hope Rand has dinner with Koch and tells him of the possibilities for his business if the EPA got out of his way and allowed more power plants and such like.
RonPaulFanInGA
03-09-2013, 08:52 PM
Right, McCain and Graham are throwing tantrums on the Senate floor because of the great neocon victory. :rolleyes:
Even Raimondo saw the light with Rand Paul recently, so what's this person's excuse? Economic Policy Journal have become the biggest concern trolls, and I've personally just tuned them out entirely.
newbitech
03-09-2013, 08:56 PM
I can't find anything I really disagree with in this article...
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/neocons-reel-in-ron-paulians.html?m=1
uhh, you have to get them to vote tho, something that Ron Paul figured out is not the easiest thing to do. Just sayin.
itshappening
03-09-2013, 09:01 PM
Did Rand actually make that last statement? Ugh...
Rand doesn't actually believe that so its kind of sad that he actually has to say it. Ugh. I don't think you can win this game with integrity. Its a lose lose. I respect Rand for trying.
Not all of the Rockwell crowd is the same. I read LRC fairly regularly. Some of them are way better than others.
Rand conducted a twelve hour filibuster on drone strikes and executive power. LRC has about a dozen contributors and they didn't make one post about it and are only now talking about it but debating at length what Rand got out of Holder while denouncing what Rand did for being 'useless'. Funny as hell!
I've come to the conclusion that they don't have much time for Rand. He's everything they hate. A successful libertarian in the GOP who is likely to be the next nominee. They worked very hard to advise Ron to be brash and not to win with their braindead political advice (Thanks Tom Woods!). They prefer to educate and for us to not get involved in the GOP beyond supporting Ron and his losing strategy because it brings more people into the site and more dollars to the Mises Institute. That's what I think explains the ambivalence to Rand and a winning strategy.
T.hill
03-09-2013, 10:13 PM
I do. Rand focused on one issue, something of a starting point to actually begin a discussion on these things. He also implied his opinion and said that a debate needed to be had on on similar issues. Rand wanted to drive one point home and get people to start to actually think and start questioning things. We all can follow when Ron calls out every fucked up thing that's going on because we're familiar with it and have actually thought about it. I wonder what % of americans are even aware of the indefinite detention clause in the NDAA, or have considered its implications.
I agree, Rand focuses on specific issues instead of propagating his entire political philosophy every chance he gets. Ron forced his philosophy on every issue, which was great, but Rand tends to break-down issues and that's fine too. If one of us were to run for office and narrow our debate to just NDAA instead of talking about indefinite detention and AUMF and decide not to relate it to the entire libertarian platform it doesn't mean ultimately we aren't against both. He did state his opinion that he believed Americans at home and abroad should get due process under the law, and implied some of his other opinions that were related to the issue-at-hand.
Sola_Fide
03-09-2013, 10:28 PM
I agree, Rand focuses on specific issues instead of propagating his entire political philosophy every chance he gets. Ron forced his philosophy on every issue, which was great, but Rand tends to break-down issues and that's fine too. If one of us were to run for office and narrow our debate to just NDAA instead of talking about indefinite detention and AUMF and decide not to relate it to the entire libertarian platform it doesn't mean ultimately we aren't against both. He did state his opinion that he believed Americans at home and abroad should get due process under the law, and implied some of his other opinions that were related to the issue-at-hand.
I would go along with that but I just don't think that is the case. I like Rand, have met him, talked with him, campaigned for him, defended him from libertarians etc. But I think I am progressing to a stage in my spiritual and philosophical life that I can with conviction disagree with Rand's half-measures.
If anything, when I am explaining a moral position against war and government force to people, I cannot use much of anything Rand says because he uses the wrong arguments and he compromises too much. The drone issue is the latest example.
Everyone here, even down to the most enthusiastic Rand supporter KNOWS deep down that drone warfare is evil. Our murder of innocent children is EVIL. According to McCain, Rand began with that position, but then he compromised to the position he has now (which still does not preclude drone warfare against Americans on American soil). Why did he do that? And how does that help the cause for liberty?
dinosaur
03-09-2013, 10:37 PM
I would go along with that but I just don't think that is the case. I like Rand, have met him, talked with him, campaigned for him, defended him from libertarians etc. But I think I am progressing to a stage in my spiritual and philosophical life that I can with conviction disagree with Rand's half-measures.
If anything, when I am explaining a moral position against war and government force to people, I cannot use much of anything Rand says because he uses the wrong arguments and he compromises too much. The drone issue is the latest example.
Everyone here, even down to the most enthusiastic Rand supporter KNOWS deep down that drone warfare is evil. Our murder of innocent children is EVIL. According to McCain, Rand began with that position, but then he compromised to the position he has now (which still does not preclude drone warfare against Americans on American soil). Why did he do that? And how does that help the cause for liberty?
Good luck changing minds if you lead off with the "you are a supporter of evil" argument.
What you call compromise, I call patiently dosing the message into digestable bites.
Rand is actually accomplishing the feat of convincing people to move towards our side...and you are citicizing him for that!
amy31416
03-09-2013, 10:46 PM
What's the problem with neocons thinking they have us in the bag?
You people need to strategize better.
AuH20
03-09-2013, 10:49 PM
This article is total nitpicking nonsense. Ron Paul supporters have always marched to their own drum and are not being led to slaughter.
Neocons herding us by CEDING to our policy demands??????? That's called "kicking their ass" in another language.
AuH20
03-09-2013, 10:53 PM
Best one sentence explanation of what Rand is trying to do.
To be fair to Raimondo, he seems to be supporting Rand 100% on this and has even told Wenzel that he's wrong on this.
I thought Raimondo was just like Wenzel but in the past 48 hours he's earned a lot of respect back from me.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/03/07/standwithrand/
"Justin Raimondo @JustinRaimondo
@WenzelEconomics Bill Kristol refutes you:"
"Justin Raimondo @JustinRaimondo
@djcronin McConnel was co-opted by the Randians"
I lost a lot of respect for EPJ and Wenzel over the last few years. I understand being skeptical but this outright illogical hostility towards Rand really makes me lose respect for them.
Raimondo should be commended for coming back on the ship and finally comprehending what Rand is doing.
amy31416
03-09-2013, 10:54 PM
I would go along with that but I just don't think that is the case. I like Rand, have met him, talked with him, campaigned for him, defended him from libertarians etc. But I think I am progressing to a stage in my spiritual and philosophical life that I can with conviction disagree with Rand's half-measures.
If anything, when I am explaining a moral position against war and government force to people, I cannot use much of anything Rand says because he uses the wrong arguments and he compromises too much. The drone issue is the latest example.
Everyone here, even down to the most enthusiastic Rand supporter KNOWS deep down that drone warfare is evil. Our murder of innocent children is EVIL. According to McCain, Rand began with that position, but then he compromised to the position he has now (which still does not preclude drone warfare against Americans on American soil). Why did he do that? And how does that help the cause for liberty?
You do what you need to do, but I have a kid and my goal is to keep her alive, well and successful. Rand is my last hope to ensure that for her lifetime. Yes, it's selfish. When she's of age, I can explain this to her and go my own way, but until then--nope. She stays under my wing and I do what's best for her and her future.
But yes, drone warfare is atrocious and evil. So is traditional war.
amy31416
03-09-2013, 10:55 PM
I would go along with that but I just don't think that is the case. I like Rand, have met him, talked with him, campaigned for him, defended him from libertarians etc. But I think I am progressing to a stage in my spiritual and philosophical life that I can with conviction disagree with Rand's half-measures.
If anything, when I am explaining a moral position against war and government force to people, I cannot use much of anything Rand says because he uses the wrong arguments and he compromises too much. The drone issue is the latest example.
Everyone here, even down to the most enthusiastic Rand supporter KNOWS deep down that drone warfare is evil. Our murder of innocent children is EVIL. According to McCain, Rand began with that position, but then he compromised to the position he has now (which still does not preclude drone warfare against Americans on American soil). Why did he do that? And how does that help the cause for liberty?
You do what you need to do, but I have a kid and my goal is to keep her alive, well and successful. Rand is my last hope to ensure that for her lifetime. Yes, it's selfish. When she's of age, I can explain this to her and go my own way, but until then--nope. She stays under my wing and I do what's best for her and her future.
But yes, drone warfare is atrocious and evil. So is traditional war.
Sola_Fide
03-09-2013, 10:55 PM
Good luck changing minds if you lead off with the "you are a supporter of evil" argument.
What you call compromise, I call patiently dosing the message into digestable bites.
Rand is actually accomplishing the feat of convincing people to move towards our side...and you are citicizing him for that!
But what is "our side"? Drone warfare against innocent brown people is not "my side" (and I will go out on a limb and say its not your side either).
sailingaway
03-09-2013, 11:11 PM
But what is "our side"? Drone warfare against innocent brown people is not "my side" (and I will go out on a limb and say its not your side either).
No it's not.
but the way I look at Rand's filibuster is, it was a good thing. How was it a bad thing? It raised the profile of drones and at least some of the problems with them, dramatically. It is one thing to say you want consistency when someone does something bad, but some are complaining when something good is done. That hardly encourages people to do more of it.
I tweeted my account into multiple 'twitmo' time outs when Rand filibustered and the next time he does something that great he'll have my full support as well.
Ron Paul wouldn't compromise principle, but to prevail he always worked with people going his way on that issue, even if they weren't going that way on everything. At minimum you can view Rand's filibuster as that, can't you?
Rand doesn't have to be the standard bearer for what you believe, but it is hard to say he didn't just do a good thing, imho. And that is the problem I have with this article.
dinosaur
03-09-2013, 11:13 PM
But what is "our side"? Drone warfare against innocent brown people is not "my side" (and I will go out on a limb and say its not your side either).
I would go out on a limb and say that we are both on the side of life being sacred and accept the non-aggression principle. This pre-emptive war nonsense isn't morally acceptable.
Think of it this way, do we need to learn algebra before calculus? Your arguments might very well be more "correct" than the ones Rand is putting out there; but Rand might be very much more correct than you are about the best way to frame an argument in order to convince people.
Brett85
03-09-2013, 11:18 PM
I can't find anything I really disagree with in this article...
Really? It seems like you've joined the dark side.
Brett85
03-09-2013, 11:26 PM
I would go along with that but I just don't think that is the case. I like Rand, have met him, talked with him, campaigned for him, defended him from libertarians etc. But I think I am progressing to a stage in my spiritual and philosophical life that I can with conviction disagree with Rand's half-measures.
If anything, when I am explaining a moral position against war and government force to people, I cannot use much of anything Rand says because he uses the wrong arguments and he compromises too much. The drone issue is the latest example.
Everyone here, even down to the most enthusiastic Rand supporter KNOWS deep down that drone warfare is evil. Our murder of innocent children is EVIL. According to McCain, Rand began with that position, but then he compromised to the position he has now (which still does not preclude drone warfare against Americans on American soil). Why did he do that? And how does that help the cause for liberty?
Did you even listen to all of Rand's speech in the 12 hour filibuster? He continually spoke out against the drone bombings overseas as well. I agree with what the others have said here. This is just nitpicking, both by you and the EPJ.
Sola_Fide
03-09-2013, 11:32 PM
Really? It seems like you've joined the dark side.
Well, it seems like many want the clear moral answers that Ron always used to give. As good as Rands filibuster was, it did not present the issue with clarity.
itshappening
03-09-2013, 11:33 PM
Everyone should read this to understand what's going on:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-filibuster%E2%80%99s-top-10-winners-and-losers/
Read that and not the junk from Rossini and Wenzel and whoever else sniping at LRC. They have no clue about modern politics.
Rothbard's essays on conservatism from the 60's don't apply today and I'm sure if he was alive he'd be thrilled and captivated by Rand.
Sola_Fide
03-09-2013, 11:34 PM
Did you even listen to all of Rand's speech in the 12 hour filibuster? He continually spoke out against the drone bombings overseas as well. I agree with what the others have said here. This is just nitpicking, both by you and the EPJ.
No he didn't.
Bastiat's The Law
03-09-2013, 11:34 PM
This article is total nitpicking nonsense. Ron Paul supporters have always marched to their own drum and are not being led to slaughter.
Neocons herding us by CEDING to our policy demands??????? That's called "kicking their ass" in another language.
No kidding! We whooped them. Some places said that Time magazine with Rubio on the cover being the GOP savior was akin to Dewey Defeats Truman.
RonPaulFanInGA
03-09-2013, 11:37 PM
Well, it seems like many want the clear moral answers that Ron always used to give. As good as Rands filibuster was, it did not present the issue with clarity.
The difference is, that Rand Paul was able to get into the U.S. Senate to do that filibuster through smart politics, whereas Ron Paul was relegated to a gerrymandered House seat because he did what you're advocating for.
Sola_Fide
03-09-2013, 11:42 PM
The difference is, that Rand Paul was able to get into the U.S. Senate to do that filibuster through smart politics, whereas Ron Paul was relegated to a gerrymandered House seat because he did what you're advocating for.
What am I advocating though? Rands argument is not consistent. It can be easily turned on itself.
Why compromise on arguing against our murder of innocent people overseas? No one here agrees with that! Why defend an argument like that?
T.hill
03-09-2013, 11:45 PM
No he didn't.
Like I said before Rand stated his opinion on the floor that he was against drone strikes of American people at home or abroad and he even brought up anwar al-alwaki and his son. It was also important to recognize that he brought to attention that he and his son were killed by 2 different drone strikes. He even said that he was against torture when he was comparing President Barack Obama with candidate and Senator Obama who he had some admiration for.
RonPaulFanInGA
03-09-2013, 11:46 PM
Why compromise on arguing against our murder of innocent people overseas? No one here agrees with that! Why defend an argument like that?
Exactly how is not mentioning it in his filibuster, even if that was the case, "compromising"?
What's next? Rand Paul "compromised" on the war on drugs because he didn't mention the surveillance drones being used on the U.S.-Mexico border?
Brett85
03-09-2013, 11:47 PM
No he didn't.
Yes he did. You obviously didn't listen to his entire speech. He didn't simply talk about drone bombings within the United States.
Brett85
03-09-2013, 11:49 PM
What am I advocating though? Rands argument is not consistent. It can be easily turned on itself.
You're advocating that Rand piss off as many Republicans as possible in order to win over a few anarchist libertarians who will never support him anyway.
Brett85
03-09-2013, 11:51 PM
Why compromise on arguing against our murder of innocent people overseas? No one here agrees with that! Why defend an argument like that?
Give me a break. So Osama Bin Laden was an "innocent person?" There have been a lot of casualties caused by the drone bombings, which is one of the reasons why it's not a good idea to have a perpetual drone war in the Middle East. But we aren't intentionally trying to "murder innocent people overseas." I'm certainly glad Rand doesn't use that kind of rhetoric.
Sola_Fide
03-09-2013, 11:52 PM
Exactly how is not mentioning it in his filibuster, even if that was the case, "compromising"?
What's next? Rand Paul "compromised" on the war on drugs because he didn't mention the surveillance drones being used on the U.S.-Mexico border?
Rand made it a point over and over again that he was NOT arguing against drone strikes overseas in "the warzone". Let's everyone be honest and admit that.
AuH20
03-09-2013, 11:54 PM
Rand made it a point over and over again that he was NOT arguing against drone strikes overseas in "the warzone". Let's everyone be honest and admit that.
Yes, but at the same time he stated that he wasn't in favor in of the Administration arbitrarily killing American citizens abroad and the noncombatants whom associated with them. Drones are used in air support situations. Not all drone strikes are used for assassination purposes.
Brett85
03-09-2013, 11:54 PM
Rand made it a point over and over again that he was NOT arguing against drone strikes overseas in "the warzone". Let's everyone be honest and admit that.
No, he also argued against that in his speech. He just didn't use the exact rhetoric you wanted him to use since he didn't say, "our government is intentionally murdering Muslim babies overseas wrapped in their nice warm pajamas."
Sola_Fide
03-09-2013, 11:55 PM
Give me a break. So Osama Bin Laden was an "innocent person?" There have been a lot of casualties caused by the drone bombings, which is one of the reasons why it's not a good idea to have a perpetual drone war in the Middle East. But we aren't intentionally trying to "murder innocent people overseas." I'm certainly glad Rand doesn't use that kind of rhetoric.
This is a completely immoral argument to me. This is no better than Lindsey Graham telling me that we're "not trying" to kill innocent people, but hey, we're America and we've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Just listen to yourself! This is not a libertarian or non-interventionust argument at all!
dinosaur
03-09-2013, 11:55 PM
Rand made it a point over and over again that he was NOT arguing against drone strikes overseas in "the warzone". Let's everyone be honest and admit that.
He was arguing that he is not against weapons being used in war. He deliberately left the rightness/wrongness of specific wars out of it.
T.hill
03-09-2013, 11:56 PM
Don't you think his advocation of a restricted foreign policy already implies hes against drone strikes and overseas assassinations, American or not?
AuH20
03-09-2013, 11:56 PM
No, he also argued against that in his speech. He just didn't use the exact rhetoric you wanted him to use since he didn't say, "our government is intentionally murdering Muslim babies overseas wrapped in their nice warm pajamas."
Killing Brown People because it feels good. I hate when I read that crap. There are elements within the government that are cold and callous without regard for human life but it's definitely not an official policy. Far from it.
Brett85
03-10-2013, 12:00 AM
This is a completely immoral argument to me. This is no better than Lindsey Graham telling me that we're "not trying" to kill innocent people, but hey, we're America and we've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Just listen to yourself! This is not a libertarian or non-interventionust argument at all!
It seems to be a non interventionist argument since I'm not advocating intervention. It's just that I'm not framing the issue in the most left wing way possible, and I'm not making statements that can't be proven.
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 12:04 AM
It seems to be a non interventionist argument since I'm not advocating intervention. It's just that I'm not framing the issue in the most left wing way possible, and I'm not making statements that can't be proven.
Ah, you think its left wing. But I disagree. I think it is the Christian position to not be involved in this murderous regime.
And if we have lost the moral clarity to argue against illegal, immoral drone strikes, then we might as well compromise on the entire pro-life position.
Brett85
03-10-2013, 12:05 AM
Ah, you think its left wing. But I disagree. I think it is the Christian position to not be involved in this murderous regime.
And if we have lost the moral clarity to argue against illegal, immoral drone strikes, then we might as well compromise on the entire pro-life position.
Is it immoral or anti Christian to use military action under any circumstances?
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 12:08 AM
Is it immoral or anti Christian to use military action under any circumstances?
Not in every instance, but in the instance of our murdering of innocent children in the middle east, yes.
kcchiefs6465
03-10-2013, 12:08 AM
Is it immoral or anti Christian to use military action under any circumstances?
Keywords just war, just war theory
Should be able to find a lot of information for free online.
Brett85
03-10-2013, 12:13 AM
Not in every instance, but in the instance of our murdering of innocent children in the middle east, yes.
The term "murder" means that it's something that we're intentionally doing. What evidence do you have that our government is intentionally murdering children in the Middle East? Please provide a link. Thanks.
kcchiefs6465
03-10-2013, 12:19 AM
The term "murder" means that it's something that we're intentionally doing. What evidence do you have that our government is intentionally murdering children in the Middle East? Please provide a link. Thanks.
Sigh. How would you phrase it? It is our direct actions that led to their homicide/death. 'Collateral damage' and 'unfortunate civilian casulties' are phrases so that people don't picture evaporated children. Furthermore, we have the evidence of signature strikes. In many of these signature strikes children are evident as being there. Look at Al Awlaki's son...
Justify it however you want. Let me know the difference between intentional and unintentional after you research the effects of white phosperus and depleted uranium. A couple glances at the subject and you would undoubtedly know that it is an atrocity. I believe you are a religious man? No doubt about it, Jesus Christ would not look kindly upon our country's actions. It is not just.
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 12:24 AM
The term "murder" means that it's something that we're intentionally doing. What evidence do you have that our government is intentionally murdering children in the Middle East? Please provide a link. Thanks.
Intentional or not is not the issue. We are intentionally there intentionally murdering people with drones. We shouldnt be there murdering people at all. You know this and believe this. Why complicate the issue?
Watch how Ron seamlessly connects the pro-life position with the anti-war position (its in the very first part of the speech). THIS is how Rand should have presented his argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-HLUGVGKQE&feature=player_embedded
MaxPower
03-10-2013, 12:45 AM
I just submitted the following rebuttal, though it is currently awaiting moderation:
"How much of Rand's filibuster did you actually *watch*? The central question was, indeed, limited specifically to the matter of the legality of pre-emptive domestic drone strikes against citizens, but Rand also very loudly and explicitly spoke against war without borders, the assassinations of Al-Awlaki and his son, etc. Rand may only have put his foot down to the point of staging a 13-hour filibuster over the impending domestic drone program, but this does not by any reasonable stretch of the mind constitute an endorsement of the administration's other brutal and oppressive policies. Watch here, especially the part starting at 35:18 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MwjvOxSgic . Starting at about 45:15, he reiterates his disgust at the killing of Al-Awlaki's son, and then attacks the secret "kill list" the Obama administration has been keeping. He repeatedly quotes Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic-- not exactly a kosher writer for neoconservatives-- and specifically Friedersdorf's generalized criticisms of the drone program, not just the idea of domestic drone strikes. At other times in the speech, Rand quoted Glenn Greenwald, the civil-libertarian leftist whose writings are devoted mostly to broad criticisms of the government's violations of the Bill of Rights. To anyone who actually watched a significant portion of Rand Paul's filibuster, it should be obvious that this was a very pointedly libertarian and actively un-neoconservative display, even though some neocons got on board with it because it was directed against the president (who they bitterly hate, even though his policies are almost indistinguishable from their own).
Having closely followed his career from the time he kicked off his Senate campaign right up through the present day, I can say that the notion that Rand Paul is a neocon is just absurd; since taking office, Rand has vigorously opposed neoconservative-style policies from the Libyan incursion to the PATRIOT Act to the NDAA to SOPA. It is certainly true that he hasn't been *as* principled and uncompromising as his father was, but to call him a neocon on those grounds is akin to calling a lighthouse beacon "black" because it isn't as bright as the sun. Rand has voted against the majority of his own party more often than virtually any other member of the US legislature in that time-- observe: http://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/senate/republican
Although he played ball with the Republican party and endorsed Romney after it became mathematically impossible for his father to win the nomination last year, Rand still actively critiqued Romney's foreign policy statements during the campaign-- observe this editorial written after the infamous endorsement:
http://www.dailypaul.com/241650/opposing-unconstitutional-wars-rand-paul-editorial
As for the claim that the filibuster "accomplished absolutely nothing" "in action (i.e., the only thing that counts)," as was noted above, you must then think that Ron Paul's entire career, more or less, does not count. Of course, I think that both Ron's career and Rand's recent filibuster most certainly did accomplish something: they inspired people, infused them with the spirit of liberty, and changed the conversation in a real and meaningful way. Why do we always hear about what the Federal Reserve is up to these days? Why is it in vogue to critique Bernanke and question the power of the Fed to pull strings however it likes, so much so that it perhaps actually has backed off to some extent? Because Ron Paul changed the conversation. Why is the secrecy and questionable legality of the Obama administration drone program now a major hot-button issue-- to the point at which the House has just passed a bill demanding Pentagon disclosure on the matter-- where there had barely been a mainstream peep about it until days ago? Because Rand Paul has changed the conversation."
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 12:57 AM
I just submitted the following rebuttal, though it is currently awaiting moderation:
"How much of Rand's filibuster did you actually *watch*? The central question was, indeed, limited specifically to the matter of the legality of pre-emptive domestic drone strikes against citizens, but Rand also very loudly and explicitly spoke against war without borders, the assassinations of Al-Awlaki and his son, etc. Rand may only have put his foot down to the point of staging a 13-hour filibuster over the impending domestic drone program, but this does not by any reasonable stretch of the mind constitute an endorsement of the administration's other brutal and oppressive policies. Watch here, especially the part starting at 35:18 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MwjvOxSgic . Starting at about 45:15, he reiterates his disgust at the killing of Al-Awlaki's son, and then attacks the secret "kill list" the Obama administration has been keeping. He repeatedly quotes Conor Friedersdorf of the Atlantic-- not exactly a kosher writer for neoconservatives-- and specifically Friedersdorf's generalized criticisms of the drone program, not just the idea of domestic drone strikes. At other times in the speech, Rand quoted Glenn Greenwald, the civil-libertarian leftist whose writings are devoted mostly to broad criticisms of the government's violations of the Bill of Rights. To anyone who actually watched a significant portion of Rand Paul's filibuster, it should be obvious that this was a very pointedly libertarian and actively un-neoconservative display, even though some neocons got on board with it because it was directed against the president (who they bitterly hate, even though his policies are almost indistinguishable from their own).
Having closely followed his career from the time he kicked off his Senate campaign right up through the present day, I can say that the notion that Rand Paul is a neocon is just absurd; since taking office, Rand has vigorously opposed neoconservative-style policies from the Libyan incursion to the PATRIOT Act to the NDAA to SOPA. It is certainly true that he hasn't been *as* principled and uncompromising as his father was, but to call him a neocon on those grounds is akin to calling a lighthouse beacon "black" because it isn't as bright as the sun. Rand has voted against the majority of his own party more often than virtually any other member of the US legislature in that time-- observe: http://www.opencongress.org/people/votes_with_party/senate/republican
Although he played ball with the Republican party and endorsed Romney after it became mathematically impossible for his father to win the nomination last year, Rand still actively critiqued Romney's foreign policy statements during the campaign-- observe this editorial written after the infamous endorsement:
http://www.dailypaul.com/241650/opposing-unconstitutional-wars-rand-paul-editorial
As for the claim that the filibuster "accomplished absolutely nothing" "in action (i.e., the only thing that counts)," as was noted above, you must then think that Ron Paul's entire career, more or less, does not count. Of course, I think that both Ron's career and Rand's recent filibuster most certainly did accomplish something: they inspired people, infused them with the spirit of liberty, and changed the conversation in a real and meaningful way. Why do we always hear about what the Federal Reserve is up to these days? Why is it in vogue to critique Bernanke and question the power of the Fed to pull strings however it likes, so much so that it perhaps actually has backed off to some extent? Because Ron Paul changed the conversation. Why is the secrecy and questionable legality of the Obama administration drone program now a major hot-button issue-- to the point at which the House has just passed a bill demanding Pentagon disclosure on the matter-- where there had barely been a mainstream peep about it until days ago? Because Rand Paul has changed the conversation."
Valid point about Ron not "accomplishing anything". I agree with that critique.
But then again, if inspiring a feeling of liberty was important, why did Rand not just be consistent with his libertarianism and argue against drone strikes everywhere like Ron has? It's not enough to argue against drones only for Americans.
Natural Citizen
03-10-2013, 01:04 AM
Good points, SF.
itshappening
03-10-2013, 03:33 AM
I'm really disappointed in EPJ since I like to share stories with them and sometimes post their stuff here. He's publishing too many hit pieces on Rand and is not being fair or balanced.
compromise
03-10-2013, 03:46 AM
Rand Paulians have reeled in the neocons, not the other way round.
acptulsa
03-10-2013, 05:35 AM
Did Rand actually make that last statement? Ugh...
Rand doesn't actually believe that so its kind of sad that he actually has to say it. Ugh. I don't think you can win this game with integrity. Its a lose lose. I respect Rand for trying.
The men and women in the military are there to fight for our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. If you don't believe me, just ask them. Of course, that's foremost on the minds of some of them, and others are more like, 'I joined because I wanted to kill someone.' Of course, some of them have actually read these documents and have the power to understand them and some, not so much. Of course, a great many people--even us--have been fooled as to the real motivations of commanders in chief.
Integrity? Where's the lie? I don't see it. What I do see is, you don't awaken someone to the fact that they're being led astray by lying about what they think their own motivation is. You wake them up by admitting that they have the motivation they have, and showing them how they're getting led astray. Right? Because otherwise you don't make them question the wisdom of their loyalties, you just piss them off. Right?
Two hundred years? I'd rather John Tyler or Grover Cleveland in a heartbeat. Don't know much about Goldwater but he's probably in competition there as well. "Last fifty years" is probably more accurate.
I think that's close enough. Dead men get no votes. They might cast votes, particularly in Chicago. But they tend not to get votes.
Well, it seems like many want the clear moral answers that Ron always used to give. As good as Rands filibuster was, it did not present the issue with clarity.
Get a quarter out of your pocket. Go on. Get out a quarter. I know you have one handy. Get it out and look at it. Who do you see? No, not the eagle, look at the front. Who do you see?
Are you trying to tell me you know so few Bible verses that you can't use Jesus' own arguments to promote peace to the people you meet? Are you trying to tell me Jesus' words aren't good enough? Rand is trying to get through to Washington, or (failing that) trying to get enough power to force Washington to act like a human being or two lives there. Therefore, his arguments are of Washington. Jesus' arguments are of God. So, as far as I'm concerned, are Confuscius' arguments, and Buddha's, and, yes, Mohammad's, if you look at what he actually said. There's lots of material. Just because Ron Paul isn't running for anything right now doesn't make his arguments any less useful and valid.
You're acting like it's unforgiveable if a car company has a salesman and a mechanical engineer, and they don't both talk the exact same way. I say it's unforgiveable if the salesman and the engineer do talk the exact same way, because if they do, one or both of them are incompetent.
Like I said before Rand stated his opinion on the floor that he was against drone strikes of American people at home or abroad and he even brought up anwar al-alwaki and his son. It was also important to recognize that he brought to attention that he and his son were killed by 2 different drone strikes. He even said that he was against torture when he was comparing President Barack Obama with candidate and Senator Obama who he had some admiration for.
Thank you for actually listening to the man, rather than reading some second-hand trollery and deciding your buttons were pushed. Good job.
God is worthy of faith. The Economic Policy Journal is not. Don't trust, just verify.
Rand made it a point over and over again that he was NOT arguing against drone strikes overseas in "the warzone". Let's everyone be honest and admit that.
You are taking that as a blanket endorsement of these wars? But he doesn't endorse these wars. Are you saying that no war was ever justified? Or that we could never again, after tainting ourselves with imperialism, find ourselves in a justified war? Or are you saying that, in a legitimate war, an unmanned aircraft would still be an unjustified weapon of that war? Even the ones that can't launch weapons, but only do reconaissance?
Come on. Answer the question. Better to be embarassed that you didn't think that through than to be embarassed that you're carrying water for professional neocon concern trolls. Answer the questions.
Brett85
03-10-2013, 07:16 AM
But then again, if inspiring a feeling of liberty was important, why did Rand not just be consistent with his libertarianism and argue against drone strikes everywhere like Ron has?
He did. You just didn't listen to his entire speech.
itshappening
03-10-2013, 07:19 AM
He did. You just didn't listen to his entire speech.
Yeah but they didn't cover that in the post-speech press so people are confused. They tend to lift what they like and approve of from Rand and give it the thumbs up but they're less enthusiastic about other aspects of his platform. But a serious objective journalist would be forced to praise Rand for what he did even though they don't agree with everything and might be predisposed to loving war, it's only the paid agitators of the defense industry like Kristol who are slamming him which is not surprising. Oh and EPJ writers... so EPJ writers have the dubious honor of being aligned with William Kristol in being critical of Rand. They're the only people who are, seriously.
Brett85
03-10-2013, 07:21 AM
Intentional or not is not the issue. We are intentionally there intentionally murdering people with drones. We shouldnt be there murdering people at all. You know this and believe this. Why complicate the issue?
Watch how Ron seamlessly connects the pro-life position with the anti-war position (its in the very first part of the speech). THIS is how Rand should have presented his argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-HLUGVGKQE&feature=player_embedded
It's an important distinction, because the term "murder" implies that we're intentionally murdering innocent children overseas. I've never heard Ron use the type of rhetoric that you're using. He's said that for every terrorist we kill, we often kill 10 or 15 innocent people by mistake, which leads to blowback and unintended consequences. I agree with him on that, and I'm not defending the drone bombings. But, when you're claiming that our government is actually "murdering children," you better present some evidence to back up a claim as wild as that.
acptulsa
03-10-2013, 07:31 AM
Yeah but they didn't cover that in the post-speech press so people are confused. They tend to lift what they like and approve of from Rand and give it the thumbs up but they're less enthusiastic about other aspects of his platform.
They just covered the filibuster on ABC's This Week--sort of. It got about a minute and a half, with little comment allowed, and though they did mention that it was Rand Paul's filibuster the footage they showed would lead you to believe that it was Rubio's filibuster--and that it was all about Jay-Z.
So much for depending on Disney to keep you informed... :rolleyes:
Edit: OMG I spoke too soon. The debate over his filibuster actually got interesting for a few minutes. Some shamelessly accused him of being bizarre because he concentrated on drone strikes and U.S. soil, but in fact it is entirely logical (as no one on the panel dared point out) to examine new technologies and how the Bill of Rights applies to them. Before the moderator shut it down, George Will actually said that people are sick of the federal governent micromanaging us and someone said--gasp!--the word libertarian! Aloud!
Nice...
itshappening
03-10-2013, 08:41 AM
Another post from Wenzel today going over what Holder released and not understanding - or getting - what just happened and the fact that a national debate has been initiated on drones which is going to lead to greater scrutiny and eventual reining in of the entire policy once the American people learn more about it.
But of course, keep hitting Rand
supermario21
03-10-2013, 08:54 AM
Here's another important link. He said frequently he wanted to deauthorize Iraq and Afghanistan, which would mean that we couldn't use drones over there. Much more subtle way of putting it.
Feeding the Abscess
03-10-2013, 08:56 AM
Another post from Wenzel today going over what Holder released and not understanding - or getting - what just happened and the fact that a national debate has been initiated on drones which is going to lead to greater scrutiny and eventual reining in of the entire policy once the American people learn more about it.
But of course, keep hitting Rand
Do you deny this, which is the point Wenzel is making?
Like all statements from people who presume to rule others, this brief message from Holder – – who is Nickolai Krylenko to Obama’s Josef Stalin – should be read in terms of the supposed authority claimed thereby. This means removing useless qualifiers in the interest of clarity.
What Holder is saying, in substantive terms, is that the President does have the supposed authority to use a drone to kill an American who is engaged in “combat,” whether here or abroad. "Combat" can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact. This is a murderous application of the "Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy," and it will be used when -- not if -- Obama or a successor starts conducting domestic drone-killing operations.
Holder selected a carefully qualified question in order to justify a narrowly tailored answer that reserves an expansive claim of executive power to authorize summary executions by the president. That’s how totalitarians operate.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133455.html
Wenzel is - correctly, in my estimation - taking the view that the Obama administration said it does have that authority, and is attempting to warn people to not celebrate this announcement as some sort of victory.
I should point that that it's sad that Sola_Fide is being attacked for progressing beyond his previously held beliefs - in the direction of more liberty! This is what we're all supposed to do; not attack others for achieving the intended objective. How ironic that some of the attackers are the ones who bash the "purists," ascribing "fear of success" to them because the "purists" don't wish to follow along the pragmatists' favored path of political action. I, for one, have had a blast watching S_F become more radical over the past 6 months or so.
Lucille
03-10-2013, 09:01 AM
Another post from Wenzel today going over what Holder released and not understanding - or getting - what just happened and the fact that a national debate has been initiated on drones which is going to lead to greater scrutiny and eventual reining in of the entire policy once the American people learn more about it.
But of course, keep hitting Rand
This one? http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/beyond-rand-pauls-victory-declaration.html
I almost responded with this, but I'm not going to bother. Some are deliberately ignoring many of the things he said during that 13 hours (criticizing Forever War, assassinating al-Awlaki's teenaged kid (and his friend) for "having the wrong dad", etc), and after. It really bugs me.
On Thursday, the Senate confirmed John Brennanas director of the CIA. But this debate isn’t over. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-rand-paul-my-filibuster-was-just-the-beginning/2013/03/08/6352d8a8-881b-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story_1.html)
The Senate has the power to restrain the executive branch — and my filibuster was the beginning of the fight to restore a healthy balance of powers. The president still needs to definitively say that the United States will not kill American noncombatants. The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment applies to all Americans; there are no exceptions.
The outpouring of support for my filibuster has been overwhelming and heartening. My office has fielded thousands of calls. Millions have followed this debate on TV, Twitter and Facebook. On Thursday, the White House produced another letter explaining its position on drone strikes. But the administration took too long, and parsed too many words and phrases, to instill confidence in its willingness or ability to protect our liberty.
I hope my efforts help spur a national debate about the limits of executive power and the scope of every American’s natural right to be free. “Due process” is not just a phrase that can be ignored at the whim of the president; it is a right that belongs to every citizen in this great nation.
brandon
03-10-2013, 09:05 AM
The neocon movement is dead. They arent the ones calling the shots anymore
acptulsa
03-10-2013, 09:14 AM
The neocon movement is dead. They arent the ones calling the shots anymore
They're obviously calling the shots at the Economic Policy Journal. And I find it very entertaining that they're trying to discredit their enemies by accusing their enemies of being them. Just goes to show how completely discredited neoconnery is.
Origanalist
03-10-2013, 09:39 AM
We do have to be careful how this is spun, since there are groups that want drones gone - in order to replace them with more boots on the ground and heavier military equipment for MIC. Some will try to use this for that, but that just means we have to be careful about what is the problem here. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/03/08/why_the_hawks_love_rand_paul_all_of_a_sudden.html
But no matter what we do, they try to spin it their way.
Just as sure as the sun sets in the west.
Origanalist
03-10-2013, 09:41 AM
The neocon movement is dead. They arent the ones calling the shots anymore
Dead? I don't think so, I wish that was true.
itshappening
03-10-2013, 09:52 AM
Do you deny this, which is the point Wenzel is making?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133455.html
Wenzel is - correctly, in my estimation - taking the view that the Obama administration said it does have that authority, and is attempting to warn people to not celebrate this announcement as some sort of victory.
I should point that that it's sad that Sola_Fide is being attacked for progressing beyond his previously held beliefs - in the direction of more liberty! This is what we're all supposed to do; not attack others for achieving the intended objective. How ironic that some of the attackers are the ones who bash the "purists," ascribing "fear of success" to them because the "purists" don't wish to follow along the pragmatists' favored path of political action. I, for one, have had a blast watching S_F become more radical over the past 6 months or so.
No Wenzel is not correct. He focusing too much on what Holder released. Who cares what he released? That's not the point. Rand didn't want the drone program ended. He knows it's not much of a victory but he would look stupid if he didn't declare one and took the moral highground and allowed the vote to proceed. He was always going to do it they just needed to give him something - anything.
The wider point is a national debate on drone murder and extra-judicial killing has been sparked and Democrats have been awoken from their civil liberties slumber and Obama looks quite stupid. That's the whole point of what Rand did. Every channel in America. Every newspaper in America and every website talking about drones and how they're used to murder not just the 4 American's but foreigners now. The dam has been burst and now there will be wider interest and scrutiny in the drone war and the potential to rein it in for good and force the Democrats in the Senate to do something all because a senator from Kentucky stood up for 13 hours and said "enough is enough".
Once Americans learn more about the drone program from the now awakened mass media it will become even more controversial and toxic. Just wait and see.
robert68
03-10-2013, 09:53 AM
..
itshappening
03-10-2013, 10:11 AM
Wenzel is hitting Rand for doing a "victory lap" again showing political naivety .
He stands with Bill Kristol and a handful of others in the whole country who are criticizing Rand over this. It's astonishing.
What he doesn't realize is that by doing a "victory lap" Rand is feeding the media frenzy on drones generated by the filibustered and he's not stopping. Every reporter in America wants to talk with him and wants to get an exclusive quote out of him and to cover what happened.
This means greater scrutiny of the drone war. This means if one of those killer drone operators who work for the CIA or the DoD make a mistake they're in big trouble. The next time they bomb a funeral or wedding it will be a huge story and Rand will be out there slamming it as the new media authority on drones. The Federal government is going to be in blind panic in the next few days and weeks over the drone policy and every strike they carry out they need to be careful.
Furthermore, Tricky Dicky Durbin promised that there will be hearings next month on the drone program and Rand will be invited to testify. As Rand says "this is the beginning". You hear that Wenzel, the BEGINNING. Not the end. So stop standing with Kristol and hitting Rand. For once. Nobody cares what Holder said in his letter you dummy.
deadfish
03-10-2013, 10:11 AM
I hate to be rude, but some of the bickering in this thread is really asinine.
This should be a required answer before commenting any futher:
Did you watch all 13 hours?
Yes or No
If no, then STFU. Rand says at least 5 times that he has concerns with the use of signature strikes in foreign countries but "that is a debate for another time."
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 10:17 AM
Wenzel is hitting Rand for doing a "victory lap" again showing political naivety .
He stands with Bill Kristol and a handful of others in the whole country who are criticizing Rand over this. It's astonishing.
What he doesn't realize is that by doing a "victory lap" Rand is feeding the media frenzy on drones generated by the filibustered and he's not stopping. Every reporter in America wants to talk with him and wants to get an exclusive quote out of him and to cover what happened.
This means greater scrutiny of the drone war. This means if one of those killer drone operators who work for the CIA or the DoD make a mistake they'rein big trouble. The next time they bomb a funeral or wedding it will be a huge story and Rand will be out there slamming it as the new media authority ondrones. The Federal government is going to be in blind panic in the next few days and weeks over the drone policy and every strike they carry out they need to be careful.
Furthermore, Tricky Dicky Durbin promised that there will be hearings next month on the drone program and Rand will be invited to testify. As Rand says "this is the beginning". You hear that Wenzel, the BEGINNING. Not the end. So stop standing with Kristol and hitting Rand. For once. Nobody cares what Holder said in his letter you dummy.
Wenzel is right in the article you are talking about. (imho)
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 10:21 AM
The Drone Question Obama Hasn't Answered
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/opinion/the-drone-question-obama-hasnt-answered.html?_r=3&
MaxPower
03-10-2013, 10:24 AM
Valid point about Ron not "accomplishing anything". I agree with that critique.
But then again, if inspiring a feeling of liberty was important, why did Rand not just be consistent with his libertarianism and argue against drone strikes everywhere like Ron has? It's not enough to argue against drones only for Americans.
It's as if you didn't read the first paragraph of the post of mine you quoted, here.
itshappening
03-10-2013, 10:29 AM
Wenzel is right in the article you are talking about. (imho)
So Rand is wrong to do a victory lap and feed the media frenzy on drones? Rand should just have not bothered at all. He should just sit down and shut up and not bother doing any of this stuff because whatever Holder releases is inadequate ? no matter that every channel in the country is talking about drones and Obama murder, no... Rand is wrong to do this. It's just not good enough. Silly Rand.
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 10:30 AM
It's as if you didn't read the first paragraph of the post of mine you quoted, here.
I read it. Rand did not argue against drone killings in the warzone, and your paragraph didn't provide any evidence that he did. But I do agree with you when you said he is not "as non-interventionist" as Ron. A casual observer would not even come away from that speech thinking that Rand is a non-interventionist at all really.
itshappening
03-10-2013, 10:32 AM
Sola, what do you want Rand to do in the senate? Since you dont think the filibuster was a good idea because Eric Holder released something inadequate, what should have Rand done instead? I'm curious to hear what your political genius thinks Rand should do in the Senate .
No Wenzel is not correct. He focusing too much on what Holder released. Who cares what he released? That's not the point. Rand didn't want the drone program ended. He knows it's not much of a victory but he would look stupid if he didn't declare one and took the moral highground and allowed the vote to proceed. He was always going to do it they just needed to give him something - anything.
The wider point is a national debate on drone murder and extra-judicial killing has been sparked and Democrats have been awoken from their civil liberties slumber and Obama looks quite stupid. That's the whole point of what Rand did. Every channel in America. Every newspaper in America and every website talking about drones and how they're used to murder not just the 4 American's but foreigners now. The dam has been burst and now there will be wider interest and scrutiny in the drone war and the potential to rein it in for good and force the Democrats in the Senate to do something all because a senator from Kentucky stood up for 13 hours and said "enough is enough".
Once Americans learn more about the drone program from the now awakened mass media it will become even more controversial and toxic. Just wait and see.
Hmm, it is a real political victory for Rand, in terms of sparking debate, raising his profile, etc... I agree with that, absolutely. Is Wenzel trying to make the point that tyrants think they are above the law?? That they will creatively and legally interpret what we think of as plain language to mean whatever they want?
I don't know, but if so, then I would agree with that too. Rand touched upon this point during the filibuster, about how "imminent" no longer means "immediate" anymore. A tyrant would simply take this statement about "American citizens not engaged in combat" and redefine what "combat" or "American citizen" means. Or change the nuance of what "American soil" refers to -- just as they are now turning the word "imminent" to mean something different. The language of the Constitution has been interpreted and inverted in all kinds of creative fashions to give the federal government more and more power over the decades. If they think they are above the law, they will bend language to mean whatever they want, and give themselves whatever authority they would like. If you tell them the sky is blue, they will redefine "blue" and tell you it's "red".... if they believe they are above the law.
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 10:35 AM
Guys, I am getting ready for work sitting at my table and I just saw a drone out of my kitchen window!!!
Not joking at all!!!! This is insane? Why are there drones in my neighborhood right now?
I really can't believe this....
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 10:43 AM
Sola, what do you want Rand to do in the senate? Since you dont think the filibuster was a good idea because Eric Holder released something inadequate, what should have Rand done instead? I'm curious to hear what your political genius thinks Rand should do in the Senate .
I already posted how I think an irrefutable moral argument would go like. It would tie the pro-life position in with the anti-war position, like Ron did. This is a consistent libertarian critique of government force.
I read it. Rand did not argue against drone killings in the warzone, and your paragraph didn't provide any evidence that he did. But I do agree with you when you said he is not "as non-interventionist" as Ron. A casual observer would not even come away from that speech thinking that Rand is a non-interventionist at all really.
He did not argue against drone killings in the warzone, but he did argue against the idea of a limitless warzone, where American soil (and the whole entire globe) is considered a battlefield. He explicitly opposed that concept. So you might say he was arguing for "warzone" to actually properly refer to an actual warzone, in an actual declared war, and not this limitless and perpetual "war" where the entire world is a "warzone". He did not say there would never be war, however, or that a drone could not be used in a war. But this is largely a debate about how we are defining "war" and "battlefield", IMO. Obama, McCain and Lindsey Graham think the entire world is a battlefield, and that war powers apply everywhere.
itshappening
03-10-2013, 10:48 AM
Important to remember when Rand talks about War and the battlefield he's meaning a congressional declared War. Logically this just isn't going to happen if he's president. Congress aint declared a war for 60 years so there will be no battlefields for a president Rand to fly the states drones around. Unless they foolishly declared a war which is possible but historically there is a huge national debate before wars are declared in America and it's not so easy to pull off even if you wanted to in order to spite Rand and get him to fight a war some place. The case to the American people has to be made through their representatives in Congress.
acptulsa
03-10-2013, 10:50 AM
Guys, I am getting ready for work sitting at my table and I just saw a drone out of my kitchen window!!!
Not joking at all!!!! This is insane? Why are there drones in my neighborhood right now?
I really can't believe this....
Tell 'em they got the wrong house--you're doing your best to be a useful idiot and make us too depressed to capitalize on the gains Rand made for us...
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 11:09 AM
Tell 'em they got the wrong house--you're doing your best to be a useful idiot and make us too depressed to capitalize on the gains Rand made for us...
I'm the idiot? For trying to push Rand in a more principled direction? To point out that the answer he got was a non-answer?
Lucille
03-10-2013, 11:32 AM
...To point out that the answer he got was a non-answer?
But he knows he got a non-answer:
The president still needs to definitively say that the United States will not kill American noncombatants (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sen-rand-paul-my-filibuster-was-just-the-beginning/2013/03/08/6352d8a8-881b-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story_1.html). The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment applies to all Americans; there are no exceptions. [...]
On Thursday, the White House produced another letter explaining its position on drone strikes. But the administration took too long, and parsed too many words and phrases, to instill confidence in its willingness or ability to protect our liberty.
acptulsa
03-10-2013, 11:39 AM
I'm the idiot? For trying to push Rand in a more principled direction? To point out that the answer he got was a non-answer?
Yes, yes and yes. He pushed the American people in a more principled direction, and it worked this time because he didn't overreach to the point where it just made them depressed enough to tune out, but made them engaged enough to step up and pay attention. And though the answer he got had elements of being a non-answer, it still paints the administration into more of a corner than they were in before, it still called attention to the issue, and it still got liberals not only asking why a Republican had to step up in defense of our civil rights but why their beloved Obama took twenty-four hours to say, no, he has no right to blow them to kingdom come while they're sitting in an American cafe.
Of all the things in the world you could criticize, this seems like one of the ones that deserves it the least...
RockEnds
03-10-2013, 11:42 AM
I hate to be rude, but some of the bickering in this thread is really asinine.
This should be a required answer before commenting any futher:
Did you watch all 13 hours?
Yes or No
If no, then STFU. Rand says at least 5 times that he has concerns with the use of signature strikes in foreign countries but "that is a debate for another time."
I agree.
Standing at the check out in the grocery store demanding to purchase food that hasn't yet been produced will accomplish nothing. It takes a lot of work to produce a crop. First the field must be worked. Then the seed is planted, the crop is tended, the sun shines, and the clouds rain. Gotta keep the fence patched so the cows don't get in. All this and much more happens before the food hits the shelf. It's not one single motion or one isolated method that puts it there. The nature of the labor changes at different stages, but it all must be done before anyone eats. It's not dinner time yet.
Ron did a great job at defining the issues and developing a base. He never once got the White House to respond to him directly. Maybe Rand deserves just a tiny bit of respect for accomplishing that necessary task in the grand scheme of things.
But he knows he got a non-answer:
Yes, and it was shitty what they did, releasing it to Fox News first, so they could pull it on him on the spot in the middle of an interview. I think they were probably figuring it would catch him off guard and make him look foolish.
Brett85
03-10-2013, 01:06 PM
Do you deny this, which is the point Wenzel is making?I should point that that it's sad that Sola_Fide is being attacked for progressing beyond his previously held beliefs - in the direction of more liberty! This is what we're all supposed to do; not attack others for achieving the intended objective. How ironic that some of the attackers are the ones who bash the "purists," ascribing "fear of success" to them because the "purists" don't wish to follow along the pragmatists' favored path of political action. I, for one, have had a blast watching S_F become more radical over the past 6 months or so.
There's nothing wrong with criticizing Rand. I've criticized him many times for things that he's said or votes that he's taken. But, groups like EPJ only criticize Rand without ever giving him any credit for anything. In this particular case, the criticism isn't legitimate at all.
Brett85
03-10-2013, 01:11 PM
Sola, what do you want Rand to do in the senate? Since you dont think the filibuster was a good idea because Eric Holder released something inadequate, what should have Rand done instead? I'm curious to hear what your political genius thinks Rand should do in the Senate .
He wants Rand to use rhetoric that will turn off as many Republicans as possible. He wants Rand to say something like, "our evil government is intentionally murdering innocent Muslim children in the Middle East for no reason at all."
green73
03-10-2013, 01:20 PM
The Lew Rockwell crowd doesn't get it because they hate government altogether it seems. I follow them on twitter and one of the blog posts was "Do you hate the state?" Look, we all hate big government, but I actually want to see government changed, not just sit on a keyboard and whine about how tyrannical things are. We have a chance to continue our movement and actually get something significant done. Now is not the time to go back into the wildnerness. The neocons are on the defensive. We must keep pushing.
Epic essay (https://mises.org/daily/5342)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACoymMYx8E0
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 01:24 PM
He wants Rand to use rhetoric that will turn off as many Republicans as possible. He wants Rand to say something like, "our evil government is intentionally murdering innocent Muslim children in the Middle East for no reason at all."
Ron never said anything like that. Ron tied the pro-life cause in with the anti-war cause, thereby ensuring that there was an airtight moral argument (that average people could understand) against government force:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7-HLUGVGKQE
Brett85
03-10-2013, 01:26 PM
Ron never said anything like that. Ron tied the pro-life cause in with the anti-war cause, thereby ensuring that there was an airtight moral argument (that average people could understand) against government force:
You mean like this?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/rand-paul-i-dont-believe-jesus-wouldve-condoned-killing/262558/
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 01:29 PM
If we have lost the moral clarity to argue against collateral murder of children overseas, then we have lost the moral grounds to be pro-life. The two issues are inseperably tied.
AuH20
03-10-2013, 01:31 PM
If we have lost the moral clarity to argue against collateral murder of children overseas, then we have lost the moral grounds to be pro-life. The two issues are inseperably tied.
But that is the issue that you are conflating. Not all drone strikes are used on children or non-combatants. Some are utilized in air support roles. Secondly, Rand Paul made it abundantly clear that he was not in favor in the manner in which they summarily executed Al-Awlaki's son.
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 01:32 PM
You mean like this?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/rand-paul-i-dont-believe-jesus-wouldve-condoned-killing/262558/
Yes! I give Rand major props for that. But don't you see how his argument in the fillibuster was not consistent with that? In fact, someone in a debate (Hillary) could turn his pro-life stance around on him given his fillibuster speech.
kcchiefs6465
03-10-2013, 01:40 PM
If we have lost the moral clarity to argue against collateral murder of children overseas, then we have lost the moral grounds to be pro-life. The two issues are inseperably tied.
Yes, but Rand Paul has opened up drones to be debated. Huffpo even had a 1200x900 picture of a drone and article questioning their use overseas. Many people aren't quite to the point where they see the problems with drones overseas. Indeed, they justify drones as justifiable so that our troops aren't directly in harm's way. They don't understand the 'collateral damage' aspect or the controversies surrounding the combatant tallies. For example, they may [but probably still do not] know that X number of 'combatants' were killed overseas in a missile strike. They don't know that any male from the ages of 16-60 are automatically considered combatants. Rand Paul's filibuster is taking drones down to the simplest form for the average MSM watching American. That is, can drones be used in America to assassinate American civilians? The overwhelming majority of Americans are against this and the question alone sets off red flags. Not everyone is against drone strikes overseas, though. Rand Paul did bring up various instances of us targeting a child and us targeting his father, and reiterated that Al Awlaki should have had a trial. People are going to hear these things, and his filibuster did help a lot of people even to begin to hear the argument against drones. Though he did speak about domestic surveillance by the EPA, warrantless wiretaps, FISA, signature strikes, and even something that made me smile, not being able to smoke cigarettes in cafes anymore. :D He did good.
ETA: Oh, I don't know how I forgot, but he also spoke for probably an hour or so on the changing of the definition of 'imminent.'
EPJ is being a bit ridiculous. It's like criticizing Ron for not wanting to immediately shut down some social spending programs.
kcchiefs6465
03-10-2013, 01:45 PM
Yes! I give Rand major props for that. But don't you see how his argument in the fillibuster was not consistent with that? In fact, someone in a debate (Hillary) could turn his pro-life stance around on him given his fillibuster speech.
They are going to try to smear him with something other than assuring American citizens aren't targeted by drones. I am no Pol science major but it could and probably would backfire if they did. No, they will undoubtedly smear him as one who hates gays, women, and minorities. He will have to refine his points on how it is a fallacy that he could hold his principles above all and be a bigot. He's got a lot to overcome, and as I've stated elsewhere, the topic of drones has not even begun. We need to take time to educate those who may not see the problems with an ever encompassing war on terror and with drones in general. A lot more are receptive after seeing that Holder and Brennan couldn't even answer the simple question of the Constitutionality of dropping a missile on an American who was never convicted of a crime.
Brett85
03-10-2013, 01:49 PM
Yes! I give Rand major props for that. But don't you see how his argument in the fillibuster was not consistent with that? In fact, someone in a debate (Hillary) could turn his pro-life stance around on him given his fillibuster speech.
I'll ask you the same question that Dead Fish asked. Did you watch all 13 hours of Rand's filibuster?
kcchiefs6465
03-10-2013, 01:52 PM
One main problem I have with the article is they forgot to mention why this was on Huff Po is the first place...
http://i.imgur.com/BfBlpDc.jpg?1
Notice the date.
Brett85
03-10-2013, 01:53 PM
And Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is 100 times more pro war and more interventionist than Rand's foreign policy. She certainly won't be criticizing Rand for failing to be sufficiently anti war.
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 01:54 PM
I'll ask you the same question that Dead Fish asked. Did you watch all 13 hours of Rand's filibuster?
Yes. Had it on all night. I missed the first hour and half, but I caught up with it on youtube afterwards. I really liked it by the way, I just wish Rand would have pushed further and been more consisent than what he was. But yes, I loved it. Who wouldn't? I'm not anti-Rand.
Brett85
03-10-2013, 01:59 PM
Yes. Had it on all night. I missed the first hour and half, but I caught up with it on youtube afterwards. I really liked it by the way, I just wish Rand would have pushed further and been more consisent than what he was. But yes, I loved it. Who wouldn't? I'm not anti-Rand.
Ok. Just keep in mind that Rand did speak out against having a "global war on terror" with an unlimited, global battlefied. He stated in an interview with the American Conservative that he supports de-authorizing the AUMF that was passed after 9-11. Do you realize that de-authorizing the AUMF would end ALL drone strikes? It seems like you're getting to the point where you're being extremely picky when you not only demand that Rand take the same position as you on this, but also use the exact rhetoric that you want him to use. The fact that he wants to frame the issue in a way that appeals to conservatives and Republicans doesn't mean that he doesn't have the correct position on the actual issue.
kcchiefs6465
03-10-2013, 02:00 PM
Yes. Had it on all night. I missed the first hour and half, but I caught up with it on youtube afterwards. I really liked it by the way, I just wish Rand would have pushed further and been more consisent than what he was. But yes, I loved it. Who wouldn't? I'm not anti-Rand.
But you should realize how effective it was. At the very least, it got the MSM to actually cover it for once. [not that they don't, sometimes, just that it's usually way down on the page if they do] Would you have ever imagined that Huff Po would run a huge graphic of dead children with the words 'US Drone Policy?' This was less than 24 hours after his filibuster. How many people do you think got up, went to huffpo.com and saw this? I am sure many did, and I am sure they are wondering, 'When will it all end?' Rand Paul is to thank for that. Now they are probably a lot more able to be persuaded. They have a basis where you can work from. Now they are a lot closer to my views, than I am towards their's. That is what is so great.
AuH20
03-10-2013, 02:01 PM
Ok. Just keep in mind that Rand did speak out against having a "global war on terror" with an unlimited, global battlefied. He stated in an interview with the American Conservative that he supports de-authorizing the AUMF that was passed after 9-11. Do you realize that de-authorizing the AUMF would end ALL drone strikes? It seems like you're getting to the point where you're being extremely picky when you not only demand that Rand take the same position as you on this, but also use the exact rhetoric that you want him to use. The fact that he wants to frame the issue in a way that appeals to conservatives and Republicans doesn't mean that he doesn't have the correct position on the actual issue.
Deauthorize the AUMF that his dad voted for. Oh snap!!
kcchiefs6465
03-10-2013, 02:02 PM
Deauthorize the AUMF that his dad voted for. Oh snap!!
Fuck you.
MaxPower
03-10-2013, 04:50 PM
I read it. Rand did not argue against drone killings in the warzone, and your paragraph didn't provide any evidence that he did. But I do agree with you when you said he is not "as non-interventionist" as Ron. A casual observer would not even come away from that speech thinking that Rand is a non-interventionist at all really.
My paragraph provided evidence in the form of a link to video-tape of Rand explicitly questioning drone killings in the warzone. At 35:30, he suggests that Al-Awlaki should have been put on trial in a federal court instead of being droned (thus questioning a drone killing). Immediately after that, he criticizes the killing of Al-Awlaki's son (another drone killing). At 47:10, Rand quotes Conor Friedersdorf writing, "For the uninitiated, it is vital to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about the drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs, the president's spokesman, replies, 'When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we have taken the fight to them.' But since the kill list itself is secret, there is no way to offer a specific counterexample." Is this criticism narrowly limited to cover a potential domestic drone program? Of course not.
And those are only a couple instances from the first hour of Rand's filibuster in which he questioned the drone program writ large. He also directly attacked the notion of war without end or borders, which (besides being the antithesis of neoconservative rhetoric) obviously implies the illegitimacy of the president's ordering drone strikes willy-nilly wherever he wants. The question Rand was filibustering to get an answer to here was about domestic drones, but it is just folly to try to claim that his message altogether stopped there. Moreover, although he may not have been as strident and vocal about non-interventionism as you might like, Rand has (apart from his filibuster) stated dozens of times-- and voted in accordance with the belief-- that the United States should fight only defensive wars, and only when Congress has issued a lawful declaration.
Rand is clearly opposed to the neoconservative position on virtually every issue that defines neoconservatism; I reiterate, he is not a neoconservative.
Sola_Fide
03-10-2013, 05:14 PM
My paragraph provided evidence in the form of a link to video-tape of Rand explicitly questioning drone killings in the warzone. At 35:30, he suggests that Al-Awlaki should have been put on trial in a federal court instead of being droned (thus questioning a drone killing). Immediately after that, he criticizes the killing of Al-Awlaki's son (another drone killing). At 47:10, Rand quotes Conor Friedersdorf writing, "For the uninitiated, it is vital to understand how Team Obama misleads when it talks about the drone program. Asked how their kill list can be justified, Gibbs, the president's spokesman, replies, 'When there are people who are trying to harm us, and have pledged to bring terror to these shores, we have taken the fight to them.' But since the kill list itself is secret, there is no way to offer a specific counterexample." Is this criticism narrowly limited to cover a potential domestic drone program? Of course not.
That is because Al-Aulaqi was an American citizen. I'm talking about the immorality of murdering innocent people with drones who are not American citizens. Rand didn't argue against this. So your paragraph did not provide evidence of what I am talking about. And if we are not arguing against drone strikes in the middle east on innocent people who are not American citizens, then we have lost the debate before we even start it.
And those are only a couple instances from the first hour of Rand's filibuster in which he questioned the drone program writ large. He also directly attacked the notion of war without end or borders, which (besides being the antithesis of neoconservative rhetoric) obviously implies the illegitimacy of the president's ordering drone strikes willy-nilly wherever he wants. The question Rand was filibustering to get an answer to here was about domestic drones, but it is just folly to try to claim that his message altogether stopped there. Moreover, although he may not have been as strident and vocal about non-interventionism as you might like, Rand has (apart from his filibuster) stated dozens of times-- and voted in accordance with the belief-- that the United States should fight only defensive wars, and only when Congress has issued a lawful declaration.
Rand is clearly opposed to the neoconservative position on virtually every issue that defines neoconservatism; I reiterate, he is not a neoconservative.
I don't think Rand is a neocon. But his foreign policy (as it has unfolded in the past couple years) is kind of muddled. He needs to be more radical (and I think that his radical side is what will endear people to him so that he can win). I agree with Justin Raimondo of all people that Rand is crazy to try to moderate the clear and radical positions of Ron. There is no need to compromise, the country is ready for the narrative now.
Wenzel has an idiot side, and he's showing it now. His last few posts about Rand are among the dumbest things I have ever read.
MaxPower
03-10-2013, 10:53 PM
That is because Al-Aulaqi was an American citizen. I'm talking about the immorality of murdering innocent people with drones who are not American citizens. Rand didn't argue against this. So your paragraph did not provide evidence of what I am talking about. And if we are not arguing against drone strikes in the middle east on innocent people who are not American citizens, then we have lost the debate before we even start it.
Did you read the Friedersdorf quote that Rand recited, which I transcribe in the paragraph you're quoting here? It is an openly generalized attack on the drone program as a whole, including the validity of the "kill list" (which is not limited to American citizens) and the secrecy of the drone program and the evidence supposedly justifying the drone killings in general (most of which are not of American citizens).
Watch at 47:40 through 47:55, in which Rand says that the administration is not being accurate when they describe everyone killed by the drone program as being bent on attacking the United States, and then suggests that some of the drone targets probably "have no conception of ever coming to America"-- do you think Rand is referring to some American citizens somewhere who "have no conception of ever coming to America?" Of course not. Rand is, again, criticizing the drone program in general, not only the potential domestic drone program or only drones' use against American citizens. He definitely focuses his critique on the notion of drone strikes on U.S. citizens, and even more so ones on U.S. soil, but once again, he does not argue that drone strikes against innocent non-American-citizens are okay, and he clearly indicates that he believes they are not.
I don't think Rand is a neocon. But his foreign policy (as it has unfolded in the past couple years) is kind of muddled. He needs to be more radical (and I think that his radical side is what will endear people to him so that he can win). I agree with Justin Raimondo of all people that Rand is crazy to try to moderate the clear and radical positions of Ron. There is no need to compromise, the country is ready for the narrative now.
I agree that Rand's foreign policy stance is not as good as his father's. However, I completely disagree that being a more outspoken, radical non-interventionist would help him electorally; the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. I assume you followed the last presidential election (perhaps even the last two)-- did you monitor the debates and media coverage, volunteer for the campaign, try to persuade your friends and family to vote Ron Paul, and defend him in internet forums and comments sections, as I did? Amid Republican circles, the number one specific critique of Ron Paul was that they liked his domestic policy, but found his foreign policy unpalatable. That was what virtually every Fox News and conservative talk radio pundit was saying, that was what your Republican friends would parrot, that was among the top five attacks one would find in the average press write-up ("Ron Paul, the quixotic fringe-candidate racist conspiracy-theorist isolationist...")-- it was everywhere. Ron was repeatedly loudly booed during Republican debates for arguing that the 9/11 attacks were the result of blowback from interventionist U.S. foreign policy or that the U.S. should follow the Golden Rule in interacting with foreign countries (yes, an audience ostensibly composed primarily of self-identified Christians booed a candidate for applying the Golden Rule). The very same audience went wild with applause when Newt Gingrich quipped, "Andrew Jackson had a pretty clear-cut idea about America's enemies: Kill them." And all of this was within the last two years. There has been absolutely no radical political sea-change since then to open the average American voter to the message of hardcore non-interventionism.
This, I am extremely confident, is specifically why Rand Paul has adopted a noticeably less strident foreign policy stance than his father did. When you come out and talk about blowback, anti-imperialism, the moral hubris of U.S. foreign policy, etc., conventional Republicans (and many Democrats) squirm in their seats. They feel the biting moral indictment of their own words and actions, and they recoil. Instead of acknowledging the correctness of your position, or even seriously considering it, they will become furious with you and lash out with emotionalistic insults-- "America-hater," "Al Qaeda sympathizer," "victim-blamer," "isolationist," etc. Observe Rudy Giuliani's much-applauded attack on Ron Paul back in '08, or Chris Wallace's suggestion last year that Dr. Paul wants us to "take our marching orders from Al Qaeda;" neither Giuliani nor Wallace made any actual valid argument, but their irrational appeals to nationalistic sentiment still carried the day in the eyes of the general public.
So it is that Rand Paul, instead of coming out and delivering the kind of hard-hitting dissidence his father was known for, approaches foreign policy discussions with carefully-measured rhetoric about affordability, constitutionality, the limits of executive power, etc., only occasionally sprinkling in a softer version of his father's moralistic stance, and avoids making the kind of sweeping anti-war declarations that so alienate the Fox News anchors of the world. This is displeasing to many in the hardcore libertarian base-- myself among them, for I far prefer listening to Ron Paul articulate the unadulterated truth with piercing clarity and righteous moral outrage over listening to his son pander to popular prejudices while gently nudging listeners in the right direction-- but the fact of the matter is that, as a political tactic, it works. Many of the same conservative figures who become nauseous at the very thought of voting for Ron Paul are positively in love with his son, even though their actual positions on the concrete issues of the day are virtually indistinguishable from one another. The same Sean Hannity who used to openly deride Ron Paul and suggest that his supporters were hacking internet polls to rig them in his favor now absolutely gushes over Rand Paul. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck-- same thing. And these public figures only reflect a trend which is also readily observable at the ground level. Although this doesn't seem to you or I like something to be proud of, the fact of the matter is that it is electorally huge. With some moderate adjustments in rhetoric and presentation style, Rand has been able to package a set of policies nearly identical to those of his father in such a way as to avoid provoking the knee-jerk scorn of "mainstream" Republicans everywhere, and while this may be a bitter pill for us hardcore Ron Paul supporters to swallow, we do need to recognize its merits.
rubioneocon
03-10-2013, 11:31 PM
"The elephant in the room for the Republicans/Neocons is the large number of Ron Paul supporters."
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/neocons-reel-in-ron-paulians.html?m=1
So let's summarize. Rand gave the hardcore neo-conservatives fits, the hardcore Marxists fits (or do I repeat myself?)
and the hard-core anarcho-libertarians are saying it's a trap. At the same time, Rand gained the support and respect of the vast majority of the right,
some on the left, and McCain and Graham have been exposed to the masses as the totalitarian, Constitution-shredding, Trotskyite Marxists that they really are.
Sounds like winning to me.
Great summary!
McCain and Graham should not be allowed to speak until they watch at least the beginning
of this hour 6 of the filibuster youtube :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkWeh4s9BaM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkWeh4s9BaM
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.