PDA

View Full Version : Hypocrisy on Sanctions from RPF




MichaelDavis
08-28-2013, 01:33 AM
In a past thread I expressed my unpopular opinion that Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons after the government threatened to use them on the United States. Continued sanctions may be necessary to prevent them from developing nukes if they will not allow our inspectors to investigate their facilities. This suggestion, of course, recieved many negative responses. Some called me hateful, brainwashed, or neoconservative. I was told by some to leave RonPaulForums because I was not a libertarian.

These people seem to be extreme hypocrites. The Menendez Ammendment (S.AMDT.3232) aimed at further crippling Iran's energy, shipping and port sectors, a year after Congress passed tough restrictions against Tehran. The ammendment passed unanimously. Yes, this includes Rand Paul. The same candidate that these individuals are supporting for president has positions they would consider hateful, brainwashed, and neoconservative.

Has anyone else experienced this blatant hypocracy?

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/rand-paul-votes-in-favor-of-more.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3254

twomp
08-28-2013, 01:38 AM
The same people who were pissed at Rand Paul for voting for the sanctions are likely the same people that are pissed off at you for saying it. We are not a collective here, we are individuals. This isn't go Team Red or go Team Blue around here. Maybe you should direct your post to some of the people who were attacking you.

P.S. Iran is surrounded by a lot of our bases and has not invaded another country in what the last 30-40 years? How many countries have we attacked/invaded in the last 10 years. Answer me that and tell me who the real threat in the region is.

Natural Citizen
08-28-2013, 01:49 AM
P.S. Iran is surrounded by a lot of our bases and has not invaded another country in what the last 30-40 years? How many countries have we attacked/invaded in the last 10 years. Answer me that and tell me who the real threat in the region is.

I'll say one thing. I don't know how well people really know their history but these are the Persians. Over 75 million strong. People better wake up and see that what is at risk here is WWIII.

Sola_Fide
08-28-2013, 01:53 AM
Aren't you the self-proclaimed "Milton Friedman libertarian"?

Sola_Fide
08-28-2013, 01:55 AM
Everyone here knows that Rand Paul isn't a libertarian.

better-dead-than-fed
08-28-2013, 01:59 AM
I hope people interested in censorship don't gain control of the government.

MichaelDavis
08-28-2013, 02:00 AM
The same people who were pissed at Rand Paul for voting for the sanctions are likely the same people that are pissed off at you for saying it. We are not a collective here, we are individuals. This isn't go Team Red or go Team Blue around here. Maybe you should direct your post to some of the people who were attacking you.

P.S. Iran is surrounded by a lot of our bases and has not invaded another country in what the last 30-40 years? How many countries have we attacked/invaded in the last 10 years. Answer me that and tell me who the real threat in the region is.

I forgot to mention that this occured in the Rand Paul Forums, so yes, these were Rand Paul supporters. Iran has not attacked yet because they know they would get annihilated. This changes when you acquire nuclear weapons and can start backing your threats.

twomp
08-28-2013, 02:03 AM
I forgot to mention that this occured in the Rand Paul Forums, so yes, these were Rand Paul supporters. Iran has not attacked yet because they know they would get annihilated. This changes when you acquire nuclear weapons and can start backing your threats.

The Russians, Chinese, North Koreans all have nukes. Why would Iran use a nuke and initiate the destruction of their own country. Your boogie man scenarios don't work around here.

If you were Iran and you were surrounded by a country who has taken down several of your neighbors, you would want to acquire a deterrent too. No wait maybe not, you would probably put your face down and your ass up right?

susano
08-28-2013, 02:08 AM
Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons after the government threatened to use them on the United States

Where did you get that, the Jerusalem Post?

kcchiefs6465
08-28-2013, 02:10 AM
The same people who were pissed at Rand Paul for voting for the sanctions are likely the same people that are pissed off at you for saying it. We are not a collective here, we are individuals. This isn't go Team Red or go Team Blue around here. Maybe you should direct your post to some of the people who were attacking you.

P.S. Iran is surrounded by a lot of our bases and has not invaded another country in what the last 30-40 years? How many countries have we attacked/invaded in the last 10 years. Answer me that and tell me who the real threat in the region is.
Iran hasn't attacked anyone offensively in hundreds of years.

The chemical and biological weapons manufactured in US labs and sold to Saddam Hussein were used against the Iranians. These weapons sales were confirmed by the Riegle Report.


"Records provided by the supplier show that, from at least 1985 through 1989, the period for which records were available, the United States government approved for sale to Iraq quantities of potentially lethal biological agents that could have been cultured or grown in large volume in an Iraqi biological warfare program. These exported materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

The bolded part shows clear evidence that the materials sold to Iraq were intended to be weaponized and used.

Aside from this, Iran has a peaceful nuclear program designed at enriching uranium to use in the medical radioisotopes we sold them. They only enrich the uranium up to about 20%. It isn't simply a stone's throw to enrich uranium to the 90% plus needed to be weapons grade. They signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty which Israel has not done.

It is kind of ironic we care about what Iran is doing with their uranium when we package up our radioactive waste and launch it in illegal, undeclared wars on whim. We poison Mesopotamia directly with our policies and have the audacity at threatening and in fact sanctioning a country who peacefully enriches uranium for energy and medical purposes.

It's rather depressing.

I'm half tempted to post a Cyclops baby to really drive my point home on who really are the terrorists. Look no further than the soldier's babies deformed through DU affected sperm. The soldiers who were directly lied to about the dangerousness of the material and the babies born so indescribably deformed it would make you cry. God bless America. All the way until flood waters rise or we're thrown off axis.

I do not mean any disrespect with my post. The OP is an Israel first Zionist and only intends to misinform and promote Israel above all. A lot of this post was directed towards him. I don't much care to get into a pointless debate so I just made the single post. Please don't take it in offense.

dillo
08-28-2013, 02:11 AM
I would rather use sanctions than military force, however ineffective and counter intuitive they are.

CPUd
08-28-2013, 02:11 AM
http://i.imgur.com/L0dXgc0.gif

MichaelDavis
08-28-2013, 02:14 AM
The Russians, Chinese, North Koreans all have nukes. Why would Iran use a nuke and initiate the destruction of their own country. Your boogie man scenarios don't work around here.

If you were Iran and you were surrounded by a country who has taken down several of your neighbors, you would want to acquire a deterrent too. No wait maybe not, you would probably put your face down and your ass up right?

You seem to forgot that North Korea was threatening to nuke us if we do not continue to give them hand-outs. Eventually, we gave into their demands. Which country has their face down and their ass up now?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/04/north-korea-food.html
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/7/north-korea-threatens-nuke-america-destroy-aggress/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/world/asia/us-says-north-korea-agrees-to-curb-nuclear-work.html?pagewanted=all

kcchiefs6465
08-28-2013, 02:16 AM
I hope people interested in censorship don't gain control of the government.
Is this a serious post?

The Espionage Act of 1917 is still on the books.

People have been imprisoned for decades for printing pamphlets describing Jesus as a pacifist. A movie maker sentenced to 10 years for a film depicting the Red Coats negatively as the British were our allies.

They've had control of the government since John Adams and the times of Matthew Lyon being sentenced to two years for mocking the president's waist line. They keep the myth perpetuated that you are free to say anything but try and read the Declaration of Independence publicly without having your head concaved by a steroidal pig.

The Supreme Court has already [illegitimately] ruled that free speech isn't unlimited with the flawed analogy of disrupting a private venue.

dillo
08-28-2013, 02:17 AM
You seem to forgot that North Korea was threatening to nuke us if we do not continue to give them hand-outs. Eventually, we gave into their demands. Which country has their face down and their ass up now?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/04/north-korea-food.html
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/7/north-korea-threatens-nuke-america-destroy-aggress/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/world/asia/us-says-north-korea-agrees-to-curb-nuclear-work.html?pagewanted=all

Do you believe that some radical religous zealots might not fear destruction based on religious beliefs? If someone wants to destroy the world, including themselves how do you deal with that?

better-dead-than-fed
08-28-2013, 02:24 AM
Is this a serious post?

The Espionage Act of 1917 is still on the books.

People have been imprisoned for decades for printing pamphlets describing Jesus as a pacifist. A movie maker sentenced to 10 years for a film depicting the Red Coats negatively as the British were our allies.

They've had control of the government since John Adams and the times of Matthew Lyons being sentenced to two years for mocking the president's waist line. They keep the myth perpetuated that you are free to say anything but try and read the Declaration of Independence publicly without having your head concaved by a steroidal pig.

The Supreme Court has already [illegitimately] ruled that free speech isn't unlimited with the flawed analogy of disrupting a private venue.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you fully about the status quo. Just saying that censorship would be no better if it were administered by people calling themselves libertarians or Constitutionalists.

susano
08-28-2013, 02:24 AM
I'm not a Libertarian so I don't care if Rand Paul is. I care that he abides by the constitution and doesn't suck up to the Zionist demons.

LibertyEagle
08-28-2013, 02:30 AM
Aren't you the self-proclaimed "Milton Friedman libertarian"?

So what?

kcchiefs6465
08-28-2013, 02:31 AM
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you fully about the status quo. Just saying that censorship would be no better if it were administered by people calling themselves libertarians or Constitutionalists.
Yeah I hear ya.

I don't see anyone repealing the power already granted to them.

That would go against everything I understand about human nature.

That is how after 90+ years we still have that atrocious bullshit on the books.

BuddyRey
08-28-2013, 02:35 AM
You trollin' brah?

compromise
08-28-2013, 04:16 AM
Everyone here knows that Rand Paul isn't a libertarian.

He's not a libertarian. He's a libertarian Republican.

V3n
08-28-2013, 06:26 AM
He's a not "a Libertarian" but he is libertarian.

Brett85
08-28-2013, 07:15 AM
I support Rand but disagree with him on the issue of sanctions. Sanctions don't work and only hurt the people of the countries that we place sanctions on. I don't really care what label Rand gives himself either. He's not 100% libertarian, but neither am I.

69360
08-28-2013, 08:23 AM
In a past thread I expressed my unpopular opinion that Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons after the government threatened to use them on the United States. Continued sanctions may be necessary to prevent them from developing nukes if they will not allow our inspectors to investigate their facilities. This suggestion, of course, recieved many negative responses. Some called me hateful, brainwashed, or neoconservative. I was told by some to leave RonPaulForums because I was not a libertarian.

These people seem to be extreme hypocrites. The Menendez Ammendment (S.AMDT.3232) aimed at further crippling Iran's energy, shipping and port sectors, a year after Congress passed tough restrictions against Tehran. The ammendment passed unanimously. Yes, this includes Rand Paul. The same candidate that these individuals are supporting for president has positions they would consider hateful, brainwashed, and neoconservative.

Has anyone else experienced this blatant hypocracy?

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/rand-paul-votes-in-favor-of-more.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3254

Who's blatant hypocrisy?

The US government has used nukes on the Japanese and threatened to use them on the Soviets. They can't be trusted with nukes.

pcosmar
08-28-2013, 08:34 AM
You trollin' brah?

Yes he is.. Beating the Drums for WWIII.

It is coming, and I had hoped for delay.. But i am getting to the point of "bring it on". Go ahead with your blatant stupidity and reap your benefits.

Put Lucifer on the throne in Jerusalem.. lets get this crap over with. :(

Cleaner44
08-28-2013, 08:56 AM
You seem to forgot that North Korea was threatening to nuke us if we do not continue to give them hand-outs. Eventually, we gave into their demands. Which country has their face down and their ass up now?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/04/north-korea-food.html
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/7/north-korea-threatens-nuke-america-destroy-aggress/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/world/asia/us-says-north-korea-agrees-to-curb-nuclear-work.html?pagewanted=all

I keep waiting for you to make just one post that isn't thought through like a child of a government worker. I am sure that you can do it and I am really looking forward to it, but I just haven't seen it yet.

Christian Liberty
08-28-2013, 09:07 AM
In a past thread I expressed my unpopular opinion that Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons after the government threatened to use them on the United States. Continued sanctions may be necessary to prevent them from developing nukes if they will not allow our inspectors to investigate their facilities. This suggestion, of course, recieved many negative responses. Some called me hateful, brainwashed, or neoconservative. I was told by some to leave RonPaulForums because I was not a libertarian.

These people seem to be extreme hypocrites. The Menendez Ammendment (S.AMDT.3232) aimed at further crippling Iran's energy, shipping and port sectors, a year after Congress passed tough restrictions against Tehran. The ammendment passed unanimously. Yes, this includes Rand Paul. The same candidate that these individuals are supporting for president has positions they would consider hateful, brainwashed, and neoconservative.

Has anyone else experienced this blatant hypocracy?

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/rand-paul-votes-in-favor-of-more.html
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3254

Some people here are under the impression that Rand is "Playing the game" and so they'll give him an exceptional degree of slack that they won't give you or anyone else.

Personally, as long as you support Ron Paul, I think you should be able to post here regardless of the specific positions you hold. If you're way off on some issues, its our job to bring you back into the fold:p

Rand Paul is not a libertarian, for a number of reasons. He's a conservative, with some libertarian leanings. I support him, but I can also loudly criticize him at times.


Everyone here knows that Rand Paul isn't a libertarian.

I don't think that's true. A number of people here do not know this.


So what?

Milton Friedman sucked?


He's not a libertarian. He's a libertarian Republican.

Carlybee's sig quote may be applicable:p


I support Rand but disagree with him on the issue of sanctions. Sanctions don't work and only hurt the people of the countries that we place sanctions on. I don't really care what label Rand gives himself either. He's not 100% libertarian, but neither am I.

You're closer than he is, I think. You may not agree with strict libertarianism on every nuanced issue, but it seems like you're on board with all of the major ones. You support legalizing hard drugs, a noninterventionist foreign policy, I've never seen you support any economic regulation, you oppose the surveilance state, exc.

You may not be in the "Near anarchist" stage that I'm at, but I do think you're a libertarian. You might be able to convince me otherwise, but from what I've seen of your posts, you are.

Rand Paul still supports a relatively high income tax (Mind you: Low compared to the statist monsters we have now, but very high for any libertarian, I'll remind everyone that the Bible considers anything at or above 10% to be tyrannical, as per 1 Samuel 8), supports drug laws, definitely waffles on noninterventionism, has not only voted for sanctions for Iran, but also to defend Israel from an attack on Iran, and I definitely believe the vote in question used a very neoconish definition of "Defense", I'd say Rand is pretty much 100% on the surveilance state, but he's not quite libertarian on most other issues.

Then again, it is a continuum rather than a hard and fast line. Rand is certainly more libertarian than Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is certainly more libertarian than Feinstein. In turn, Ron Paul is certainly more libertarian than Rand, but not as much so as Murray Rothbard. So I guess its subjective where exactly you draw the line. Some people argue that only ancaps are libertarians, which would still discount me too.

Sola_Fide
08-28-2013, 09:18 AM
So what?

It could explain his Cato-like misunderstanding of foreign policy.

V3n
08-28-2013, 09:28 AM
I support Rand. I don't feel like I 'give him slack' concerning sanctions. I just really don't care about sanctions. There are a lot of issues that I do care about, and I like what I've heard from Rand regarding those issues. I just have no interest in "sanction". It's just not a hot topic for me.

69360
08-28-2013, 10:51 AM
I care a little about sanctions. But it's not a major issue for me. I don't have impossible purity tests for politicians. If they are 80% good that's enough for me.

angelatc
08-28-2013, 10:55 AM
The same people who were pissed at Rand Paul for voting for the sanctions are likely the same people that are pissed off at you for saying it. We are not a collective here, we are individuals. This isn't go Team Red or go Team Blue around here. Maybe you should direct your post to some of the people who were attacking you.

P.S. Iran is surrounded by a lot of our bases and has not invaded another country in what the last 30-40 years? How many countries have we attacked/invaded in the last 10 years. Answer me that and tell me who the real threat in the region is.

Iran has never been the aggressor in any of the wars and skirmishes it's been involved in. This guy is a neocon, probably paid to come here and beat the war drums.

Remember that, Michiganders. When Terri Lynn Land turns out to be a McCain Republican, this guy was here singing her praises.

Christian Liberty
08-28-2013, 10:57 AM
Is this a serious post?

The Espionage Act of 1917 is still on the books.

People have been imprisoned for decades for printing pamphlets describing Jesus as a pacifist. A movie maker sentenced to 10 years for a film depicting the Red Coats negatively as the British were our allies.

They've had control of the government since John Adams and the times of Matthew Lyon being sentenced to two years for mocking the president's waist line. They keep the myth perpetuated that you are free to say anything but try and read the Declaration of Independence publicly without having your head concaved by a steroidal pig.

The Supreme Court has already [illegitimately] ruled that free speech isn't unlimited with the flawed analogy of disrupting a private venue.


Exactly! Good to know people here actually understand the issue with the "Fire in a crowded theater" analogy. Most people simply don't get it.

I care a little about sanctions. But it's not a major issue for me. I don't have impossible purity tests for politicians. If they are 80% good that's enough for me.

It depends on the issue for me. Supporting warmongering is an instant dealbreaker. Sanctions are aggravating, but not a dealbreaker, especially since I know Rand is doing it to appease the neocons and hopefully avoid a war.

angelatc
08-28-2013, 10:58 AM
I'll say one thing. I don't know how well people really know their history but these are the Persians. Over 75 million strong. People better wake up and see that what is at risk here is WWIII.

Sure - that's the best part about going into Syria. We can then say that the Iranians are sending troops, and try to move right into their country too. Hell, we can drop a nuclear bomb on them and then call ourselves heroes for saving millions of lives.

Christian Liberty
08-28-2013, 11:06 AM
Sure - that's the best part about going into Syria. We can then say that the Iranians are sending troops, and try to move right into their country too. Hell, we can drop a nuclear bomb on them and then call ourselves heroes for saving millions of lives.

And the flag waving neocon "Christians" will scream "Support the troops as they fight for our freedoms" throughout the entire ordeal.

dannno
08-28-2013, 11:20 AM
Why don't we put sanctions on our own country, we threaten Iran all the time!

dannno
08-28-2013, 11:27 AM
If I went down to the store and put a gun to the head of the clerk and said they cannot sell food to you because I wanted to starve you, that would be an act of violence.

That's what sanctions are, and that is why sanctions are called an act of war.

If we are continually berating countries with acts of war who haven't done anything to us, why would we be surprised when we are threatened?

I expect an answer to some of my questions, OP.

VBRonPaulFan
08-28-2013, 11:56 AM
If I went down to the store and put a gun to the head of the clerk and said they cannot sell food to you because I wanted to starve you, that would be an act of violence.

That's what sanctions are, and that is why sanctions are called an act of war.

If we are continually berating countries with acts of war who haven't done anything to us, why would we be surprised when we are threatened?

I expect an answer to some of my questions, OP.

Don't expect any answers, there are more than enough other very good points which he has yet to address. Freakin' trolls.

pcosmar
08-28-2013, 12:07 PM
And the flag waving neocon "Christians" will scream "Support the troops as they fight for our freedoms" throughout the entire ordeal.

They are not Christians. just as Zionists are not Jews.

They are Luciferians. and are working to bring about his kingdom.

chudrockz
08-28-2013, 12:09 PM
I forgot to mention that this occured in the Rand Paul Forums, so yes, these were Rand Paul supporters. Iran has not attacked yet because they know they would get annihilated. This changes when you acquire nuclear weapons and can start backing your threats.

You mean like the insane United States government does??!

T.hill
08-28-2013, 12:11 PM
I sup
port Rand but disagree with him on the issue of sanctions. Sanctions don't work and only hurt the people of the countries that we place sanctions on. I don't really care what label Rand gives himself either. He's not 100% libertarian, but neither am I.

To be fair even though hea been willing to use sanctions as a tool to avoid a full-blown war, hes even been critical of its effectiveness to preventcountries from obtaining nuclear weapons.

chudrockz
08-28-2013, 12:15 PM
To be fair even though hea been willing to use sanctions as a tool to avoid a full-blown war, hes even been critical of its effectiveness to preventcountries from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Using an act of war as a means to avoid a war doesn't really make sense to me.

Christian Liberty
08-28-2013, 12:25 PM
They are not Christians. just as Zionists are not Jews.

They are Luciferians. and are working to bring about his kingdom.

Well, I did put that in quotes, but I do think there are some Christians who are just ignorant. That doesn't stop me from calling them absolute idiots and sheeple though....

Brett85
08-28-2013, 12:28 PM
To be fair even though hea been willing to use sanctions as a tool to avoid a full-blown war, hes even been critical of its effectiveness to preventcountries from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Yeah, that's why I think his support for sanctions might be more political than authentic.

erowe1
08-28-2013, 12:30 PM
Why do so many people answer yes?

Rand Paul is not a libertarian. He says so. He goes out of his way to insist it. There's no definition of libertarian I know that he fits. He constantly gets smeared with the accusation that he is one. And we here could do him a favor by agreeing that he isn't.

Brett85
08-28-2013, 12:36 PM
You're closer than he is, I think. You may not agree with strict libertarianism on every nuanced issue, but it seems like you're on board with all of the major ones. You support legalizing hard drugs, a noninterventionist foreign policy, I've never seen you support any economic regulation, you oppose the surveilance state, exc.

You may not be in the "Near anarchist" stage that I'm at, but I do think you're a libertarian. You might be able to convince me otherwise, but from what I've seen of your posts, you are.

That's generally true, although I'm not exactly sure how you define "non interventionism." I might not be able to give myself that label if it means 100% non intervention in every situation. I would say that I support non intervention as a general principle and only support intervention in what I would consider an "extraordinary situation." I mean, I'm more of a non interventionist than Rand, and probably more of a non interventionist than Amash. But, I'm not quite as non compromising as Ron in opposing all foreign intervention in every single situation. I probably support non intervention 99% of the time. For example, if we ever had another situation like we had with Hitler where one country started invading all of it's neighbors and attempted to take over the entire world, I would support a military intervention in that situation. I think it presents an actual threat to our national security when you have one country aquiring more and more power and attempting to take over the world.

kcchiefs6465
08-28-2013, 12:36 PM
If we are so worried about what people are doing with their uranium perhaps we shouldn't have sold the world over depleted uranium munitions. (or turned Fallujah into Chernobyl, for that matter)

If we are so worried about what people are doing with their gas or biological weapons perhaps we shouldn't arm the region with Anthrax and Sarin, among others.

Seems we have no business in dictating anything to anyone considering our illegal aggressive wars and sponsored coups.

We are the menace. Every damn time. And I wouldn't be surprised for conclusive evidence to come out down the line on our role in Syria with regards to the recent [alleged] gas attacks. That we were arming, funding, and training the rebels has already been all but proved.

Another death squad funded by the good ol USA.

Brett85
08-28-2013, 12:40 PM
As far as the poll is concerned, I'm not necessarily sure how to answer it. Is Rand 100% libertarian? No, he's not. But how do you even define "100% libertarian?" Libertarians disagree with each other all the time and debate various issues. But is Rand generally libertarian? It seems to me that he is.

Christian Liberty
08-28-2013, 12:42 PM
That's generally true, although I'm not exactly sure how you define "non interventionism." I might not be able to give myself that label if it means 100% non intervention in every situation. I would say that I support non intervention as a general principle and only support intervention in what I would consider an "extraordinary situation." I mean, I'm more of a non interventionist than Rand, and probably more of a non interventionist than Amash. But, I'm not quite as non compromising as Ron in opposing all foreign intervention in every single situation. I probably support non intervention 99% of the time. For example, if we ever had another situation like we had with Hitler where one country started invading all of it's neighbors and attempted to take over the entire world, I would support a military intervention in that situation. I think it presents an actual threat to our national security when you have one country aquiring more and more power and attempting to take over the world.

I don't honestly believe Hitler ever intended to take over the entire world. Just out of curiosity, have you ever read "End the Fed"? I read it recently, and even though I know Ron publicly says that he was fine with WWII because Congress declared the war and we were attacked first, he heavily implies in "End the Fed" that we shouldn't have gotten into that war either.

Of course, I know that if you ever question ANY evil action of Hitler, you're a "Neo-Nazi" according to the establishment, but I think his intentions are exaggerated a bit by the public school system. I don't think he was ever a threat to the US.

I'll point out as well that WWII was a lot more controversial back then than it is now. Hardly anyone questions it now, but the noninterventionists of the era (Such as Robert Taft) wanted to stay out of it back then.

I think ultimately, people who make an exception for WWII are more motivated by the extreme humanitarian cause (6 million + Jews being tortured and murdered) than they are by a genuine threat to US security, but I could be wrong about that, and I'm not convinced that this applies to you either.

Just out of curiosity, where has Amash supported interventionism whereas you do not?

Christian Liberty
08-28-2013, 12:43 PM
As far as the poll is concerned, I'm not necessarily sure how to answer it. Is Rand 100% libertarian? No, he's not. But how do you even define "100% libertarian?" Libertarians disagree with each other all the time and debate various issues. But is Rand generally libertarian? It seems to me that he is.

As I said, its a continuum. But I don't think it really applies for him. If ancaps are tier 1 libertarians, and minarchists are tier 2 libertarians, I think Rand would be fifth or sixth tier at the very best. At that point, I think you're talking about a conservative.

Brett85
08-28-2013, 12:48 PM
Just out of curiosity, where has Amash supported interventionism whereas you do not?

Well, I'm not sure if he has. I've just never heard him call for closing all of the foreign military bases and bringing all of our troops home, which is what Ron Paul advocated and what I advocate. I personally consider foreign military bases to be a form of interventionism, although others may not. I also think Amash has said that he's open to some foreign aid at least in some situations, and I'm in favor of ending all foreign aid. But, as far as foreign military interventions are concerned, I've never heard him advocate one.

Brett85
08-28-2013, 12:53 PM
I'm copying and pasting what I wrote about WWII and Hitler into the other thread about if foreign intervention is ever justified. I might not be able to discuss that issue until later this evening though.

Christian Liberty
08-28-2013, 12:54 PM
Well, I'm not sure if he has. I've just never heard him call for closing all of the foreign military bases and bringing all of our troops home, which is what Ron Paul advocated and what I advocate. I personally consider foreign military bases to be a form of interventionism, although others may not. I also think Amash has said that he's open to some foreign aid at least in some situations, and I'm in favor of ending all foreign aid. But, as far as foreign military interventions are concerned, I've never heard him advocate one.

OK, fair enough.


I'm copying and pasting what I wrote about WWII and Hitler into the other thread about if foreign intervention is ever justified. I might not be able to discuss that issue until later this evening though.

Fair enough.

erowe1
08-28-2013, 01:04 PM
As far as the poll is concerned, I'm not necessarily sure how to answer it. Is Rand 100% libertarian? No, he's not. But how do you even define "100% libertarian?" Libertarians disagree with each other all the time and debate various issues. But is Rand generally libertarian? It seems to me that he is.

A libertarian advocates everyone running around with no clothes on and smoking pot.

Rand Paul is not one of those.

Christian Liberty
08-28-2013, 01:24 PM
A libertarian advocates everyone running around with no clothes on and smoking pot.

Rand Paul is not one of those.

I assume you're joking?;)

erowe1
08-28-2013, 02:09 PM
I assume you're joking?;)

No I'm serious. He really isn't.

Christian Liberty
08-28-2013, 02:43 PM
No I'm serious. He really isn't.

I meant the part about libertarians advocating everyone run around with no clothes and smoking pot. Do you really think that's what libertarianism is?

dannno
08-28-2013, 02:56 PM
I meant the part about libertarians advocating everyone run around with no clothes and smoking pot. Do you really think that's what libertarianism is?

Us libertarians only desire to go run around with no clothes while smoking pot stems from the legal status of running around with no clothes while smoking pot.

erowe1
08-28-2013, 02:57 PM
I meant the part about libertarians advocating everyone run around with no clothes and smoking pot. Do you really think that's what libertarianism is?

It's one definition. And, when using that definition, Rand is not one.

better-dead-than-fed
08-28-2013, 05:12 PM
It's one definition. And, when using that definition, Rand is not one.

How would Rand have the government treat pot smokers?

erowe1
08-28-2013, 05:46 PM
How would Rand have the government treat pot smokers?

The federal government?

I'm not sure exactly. But he'd definitely go after them a lot less than what has been the norm for several decades.

better-dead-than-fed
08-28-2013, 05:49 PM
... he'd definitely go after them a lot less than what has been the norm for several decades.

Would he go after them more than a libertarian would?

Christian Liberty
08-28-2013, 06:04 PM
It's one definition. And, when using that definition, Rand is not one.

Its a stupid definition:p

Murray Rothbard wasn't a libertarian by that definition either. Any definition that excludes Murray Rothbard, while possibly excluding people that may support redistribution of wealth and/or war is a definition so stupid as to not be worth my time.

The Rand Paul comment doesn't exactly offend me, but it showed stupidity on his part.

The federal government?

I'm not sure exactly. But he'd definitely go after them a lot less than what has been the norm for several decades.

He has said he'd allow states to legalize it, but hasn't actually supported doing that.

erowe1
08-28-2013, 06:11 PM
Would he go after them more than a libertarian would?

Of course.

better-dead-than-fed
08-28-2013, 08:07 PM
Of course.

Why do you believe that? What evidence is there that he would?