Does Rand Paul support the new Iran sanctions?

[Anti-Neocon]

It would seem he does, according to this article (http://freebeacon.com/a-lonely-flake/).

[tsai3904]

It would seem he does, according to this article (http://freebeacon.com/a-lonely-flake/).

Keeping an open mind does not mean support. However, Rand has voted for sanctions before so it shouldn't be a surprise if he does support them.

[Christian Liberty]

These threads should not be in Rand's subforum. I'm not sure if the OP is familiar with the controversy around these points before, but we're pretty much not allowed to criticize Rand in his subforum. In a thread that's pretty much asking for Rand to be criticized, I feel this should be in Gen Politics or Hot Topics.

Do you have any objection to me asking the mods to move this thread?

[jmdrake]

Maybe we're reading a different article. The article I read said:

“Sen. Paul has not said he wouldn’t support it in a vote,” the Paul aide told the Free Beacon. “He has supported previous sanctions, and believes they have helped bring Iran to the [negotiating] table. “

“The timing of this vote is important, and since [Paul] can’t determine when it will be brought up, he will for now keep an open mind on the bill,” the source said.

Further is states:

Paul and Flake remain the only Republicans who have avoided taking a firm stand.

and lastly

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) took aim at both Flake and Paul in Friday statement.

“We are disappointed that two GOP Senators have thus far failed to join their colleagues as cosponsors and we hope they will yet agree to sign on,” said RJC executive director Matt Brooks, who urged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) to promptly bring the bill to a vote.

“In contrast to the Republicans, 16 of 55 (29 percent) Democrat senators have cosponsored the bill, which speaks volumes about the tensions within their caucus about the necessity of confronting a serious threat affecting the U.S. and our allies,” Brooks added.

Following publication, a Flake spokesperson emailed the Free Beacon a statement attributed to the senator.

“Talks on implementation of the Nov. 24 agreement are ongoing, but time is running out,” the statement said. “If Iran is simply using this as another stalling tactic, further congressional action will be warranted.”

So it's clear to me that Paul and Flake have taken the same position, the article in question is being dishonest in its title, and it is a hack job to try to pressure both Paul and Flake to support the bill so that neither will be the last hold out opposing it.

[jtstellar]

sanctions can be one of those red herring issues

intuitive part of me thinks there's sanction in the first place because of a fiat currency system where government has possession of legal rights of money and can therefore tell where it must or must not go.. which may be a necessary consequence once you print money, of course you have to rein in somewhat where that leads to, sort of like starting a housing bubble, some restraints will seem necessary to make it less bad, but issue is unlimited credit in the first place.

ron says he is against sanctions, but i think he is thinking more in terms of a gold standard, free market money point of view--of course people then have the liberty to do what they want, but what if governments print up unlimited money and hand them to banks? should they then place some regulation on where the powerful and connected funnel their money into countries that lean hostile?

this is sort of like the LP argument, 'restraining border, two wrongs don't make a right, just because welfare is wrong doesn't mean you should shut down border to lessen the problem' well then does the welfare state not exist or do they think that issue can be solved with the flip of a switch, so that democrats should just direct libertarian efforts toward whatever democratic establishment finds incentives to push for on any reason that happens to coincide with libertarian agenda in an awkward and manipulative circumstance? if being useful idiots has no downside, this world would not have thieves and there would be no victims.

[Schifference]

There is no way Rand will be president without a major political party backing him. This is not to be construed as a negative for Rand but rather a dose of reality for those that think he doesn't need to be a politician to get elected.

[phill4paul]

“I think the solution is to do a lot less a lot sooner, and mind our own business, and we wouldn’t have this threat of another war,” Paul said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-sanctions-against-iran-are-an-act-of-war/

[Christian Liberty]

@jmdrake- I didn't even read it, I just saw by the title that this was going to be controversial. That said, my patience with Rand has basically run out. I'm not going to get further into this in Rand's subforum.

[jtstellar]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-sanctions-against-iran-are-an-act-of-war/

in a binary situation where a computer has to generate 0s or 1s, yes it would lean toward more hostility rather than non-hostility, but can you think for yourself for once instead of citing ron paul every time like gospel? ron is near that level yes, but doesn't mean you shouldn't think for yourself.

[Christian Liberty]

I disagree with Ron Paul a lot. Oh, I agree with him far more than I disagree with him, but there are plenty of issues where I don't. That sanctions, ESPECIALLY during negotiations, are a downright vicious "tactic" is not one of those times.

[jmdrake]

@jmdrake- I didn't even read it, I just saw by the title that this was going to be controversial. That said, my patience with Rand has basically run out. I'm not going to get further into this in Rand's subforum.

I was critical of Rand before anybody else. But then I realized what he was actually doing. And I don't mind controversy. The thread title doesn't fit the content of the article though. From the look of "Freebeacon" it seems to be a teocon/neocon site and the purpose of the article was to put pressure on Jeff Flake. It was a "divide and conquer" tactic on the only two senators with anything of a conscience.

[phill4paul]

in a binary situation where a computer has to generate 0s or 1s, yes it would lean toward more hostility rather than non-hostility, but can you think for yourself for once instead of citing ron paul every time like gospel? ron is near that level yes, but doesn't mean you shouldn't think for yourself.

Lol, wtf are you on about? His position just happens to echo mine. And these are the RonPaulForums. So....:rolleyes:

[Christian Liberty]

I was critical of Rand before anybody else. But then I realized what he was actually doing. And I don't mind controversy. The thread title doesn't fit the content of the article though. From the look of "Freebeacon" it seems to be a teocon/neocon site and the purpose of the article was to put pressure on Jeff Flake. It was a "divide and conquer" tactic on the only two senators with anything of a conscience.

Maybe you don't have a problem with it, but we aren't allowed to criticize Rand in his forum. Hence why I don't want to have the conversation here. Because someone is going to report me for it, even if it isn't you.

[jmdrake]

I disagree with Ron Paul a lot. Oh, I agree with him far more than I disagree with him, but there are plenty of issues where I don't. That sanctions, ESPECIALLY during negotiations, are a downright vicious "tactic" is not one of those times.

I agree. From everything I've read, including in the OP linked article, Rand does not support sanctions during negotiations. If Rand's vote is the last vote needed to be "veto proof" I think Rand will stand against sanctions. But if not, is he going to sacrifice himself politically just to be a "no vote"? I doubt it. I love Ron. But he never won a statewide office.

[jtstellar]

Lol, wtf are you on about? His position just happens to echo mine. And these are the RonPaulForums. So....:rolleyes:

if you parrot your position after every single sentence, ya, of course, but i guess you missed my point.

[Christian Liberty]

I agree. From everything I've read, including in the OP linked article, Rand does not support sanctions during negotiations. If Rand's vote is the last vote needed to be "veto proof" I think Rand will stand against sanctions. But if not, is he going to sacrifice himself politically just to be a "no vote"? I doubt it. I love Ron. But he never won a statewide office.

The problem is, the paradigm shift in the direction of "statism" is so extreme in this country that if you won't "sacrifice yourself politically" for something that less than 33 other senators believe in, you aren't worth my time in my book. If you're willing to support someone who panders and is willing to compromise on all his principles in order to get elected, that's fine, but I'm not. If Rand votes yes on sanctions while we are in negotiations, I am almost certainly done supporting him, barring some extreme development that I don't anticipate.

Now: I'm done posting in this thread, because this forum is supposed to be for supporters of Rand, which I'm really not ATM.

[phill4paul]

if you parrot your position after every single sentence, ya, of course, but i guess you missed my point.

I guess I did. I have no idea what you mean by....


if you parrot your position after every single sentence

Are you saying that I repeat myself?

[jtstellar]

I guess I did. I have no idea what you mean by....



Are you saying that I repeat myself?

i don't care enough about you to do a forum search,

no offense, but i don't know you personally.

but all you have done here is linking a 2+ year old article by ron, to say you have finely iterated your updated, 2014-toned opinion on sanctions or particularly the language of this bill in question, is simply laughable. opinions should always evolve in content or in tone and they should be fine tuned over time without violating their fundamental essence. when i started out, ron paul said sanctions were bad and i simply took everything he said word by word on all issues because i, as with many others, were simply still trying absorb the enormous amount of information as we were climbing out of political apathy.

all you people have had a couple more years to develop your own thinking since then and actually contribute, so what have you come up with? i am not questioning our roots, but where have you all taken ron paul's words? have you all fine tuned the details and built things around it as rand has? all theories progress with time, just like technology, but the design philosophy remains the same. are some of you still stuck in 2008?

[phill4paul]

i don't care enough to do a forum search,

'nuff said.

[jtstellar]

'nuff said.

why? not nearly.

the public is reading this, not just your parents and people who know you. i do the diligence of reiterating my opinion on every issue, because new things come up and tone needs to be updated if not the content itself. the part of you that assumes it's others' responsibility to do a thorough research on your stance and find the good things and make the argument for you is laughable. that's why presentation is so important, as rand has long discovered. this forum isn't a giant 'gotcha' game guys, grow up, and grow away from the one-liners.

[phill4paul]

why? i do the diligence of reiterating my opinion on every issue, because new things come up and tone needs to be updated if not the content itself. the part of you that assumes it's others' responsibility to do a thorough research on your stance and find the good things and make the argument for you is laughable. this forum isn't a giant 'gotcha' game guys, grow up, and grow away from the one-liners.

What the fuck more needs to be said that hasn't already? There has been at least a dozen threads dealing with this issue since the inception of the forums. Everyone got behind Ron on this when he was running in 2008-2012. Since that time Rand has come to the forefront as RonPaulForums leading politician. Some people will argue now for what ever Rand's stragedy is. Even if that is opposite of what the majority of the forums supported in those primary years.

[Brett85]

There is no way Rand will be president without a major political party backing him. This is not to be construed as a negative for Rand but rather a dose of reality for those that think he doesn't need to be a politician to get elected.

Except that there's no point of winning if you have to abandon all of your principles in order to win.

Of course, as JMDrake pointed out, the Free Beacon is claiming that Rand said something that he didn't say. Rand has basically said that he's undecided at this point. Still, with Ron we always knew that he would stand strong and always oppose this warmongering crap. With Rand we never know how he's going to vote. I just don't like it at all.

[Christian Liberty]

Except that there's no point of winning if you have to abandon all of your principles in order to win.

Of course, as JMDrake pointed out, the Free Beacon is claiming that Rand said something that he didn't say. Rand has basically said that he's undecided at this point. Still, with Ron we always knew that he would stand strong and always oppose this warmongering crap. With Rand we never know how he's going to vote. I just don't like it at all.

I'd be shocked if he actually voted against the sanctions. Of course, most will excuse it as "political expediency" or what have you. I won't.

[jmdrake]

Let's see. The enemies of freedom want to put pressure on Jeff Flake by falsely portraying that he is the only republican standing up against sanctions on Iran at this point. I say "falsely portray" because Jeff Flake and Rand Paul have basically said the same thing which is "We haven't signed on to sanctions yet but we haven't ruled it out either." And so what do some friends of liberty here do? Go along with the ruse put out by the enemies of liberty without even reading the article. Enough said.

[Brett85]

I'd be shocked if he actually voted against the sanctions. Of course, most will excuse it as "political expediency" or what have you. I won't.

Yeah, and the issue of the sanctions themselves really aren't the issue. We already know from his past votes that he supports sanctions. But this time passing the sanctions would blow up the negotiations, which would bring us closer to a war with Iran. So I'm still holding out hope that he'll vote against it.

[phill4paul]

Let's see. The enemies of freedom want to put pressure on Jeff Flake by falsely portraying that he is the only republican standing up against sanctions on Iran at this point. I say "falsely portray" because Jeff Flake and Rand Paul have basically said the same thing which is "We haven't signed on to sanctions yet but we haven't ruled it out either." And so what do some friends of liberty here do? Go along with the ruse put out by the enemies of liberty without even reading the article. Enough said.

I think Rand has made his position clear on this issue....


Following his speech yesterday, I was afforded the opportunity to ask Paul a question about about this. The sanctions, I said, are not only strategically ineffective, but they are a cruel form of collective punishment that harm innocent Iranian civilians, without much purpose beyond political points at home. Instead of serving as an alternative to war, as Paul said in his speech, sanctions have historically been a prelude to it.

Here is his response in full:

I believe sanctions are not a prelude to war, but rather a tool to achieve a desired result without war. While it may be true that others have used sanctions as simply a box to check on the way to war, that does not mean sanctions cannot be used properly. I do not believe they have passed their point of effectiveness, and to say so, to give up on them, may remove one of the last remaining obstacles to a consensus on preemptive war. I believe sanctions can be enhanced through strategic diplomacy engaging Russia and China. Finally, Iran has recently asked for renewed discussions, some believe this is a direct outcome of the pressure of sanctions.

http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/02/07/rand-paul-on-iran-sanctions/

[Brett85]

I think Rand has made his position clear on this issue....

We know from past votes that Rand supports sanctions against Iran. But this vote is different since passing sanctions now would blow up negotiations and lead to a war with Iran. That's why President Obama and some Senate Democrats oppose it.

[supermario21]

I would be very disappointed in Rand if he voted for these. He said on Special Report a month or so ago that it would be unwise to levy further sanctions while negotiations are ongoing. And you know Lindsey and Menendez will ramp up sanctions...

[FSP-Rebel]

http://i44.tinypic.com/18cint.jpg

[Christian Liberty]

Let's see. The enemies of freedom want to put pressure on Jeff Flake by falsely portraying that he is the only republican standing up against sanctions on Iran at this point. I say "falsely portray" because Jeff Flake and Rand Paul have basically said the same thing which is "We haven't signed on to sanctions yet but we haven't ruled it out either." And so what do some friends of liberty here do? Go along with the ruse put out by the enemies of liberty without even reading the article. Enough said.

Obama has said he would veto these sanctions. That Rand is even "not ruling them out" makes him worse than Obama on this issue. That's pathetic any way you look at it.

We know from past votes that Rand supports sanctions against Iran. But this vote is different since passing sanctions now would blow up negotiations and lead to a war with Iran. That's why President Obama and some Senate Democrats oppose it.

Yep.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, and the issue of the sanctions themselves really aren't the issue. We already know from his past votes that he supports sanctions. But this time passing the sanctions would blow up the negotiations, which would bring us closer to a war with Iran. So I'm still holding out hope that he'll vote against it.

Exactly.

Its one thing where Rand is the best in the senate on an issue, but he's still not good enough, its another thing entirely when Rand is actually more of a hawk than the President. I hope he votes the right way, but I ain't holding my breath.

[phill4paul]

We know from past votes that Rand supports sanctions against Iran. But this vote is different since passing sanctions now would blow up negotiations and lead to a war with Iran. That's why President Obama and some Senate Democrats oppose it.

We will see. Rand is interesting in his approach to politics to say the least.

[Brian4Liberty]

It would seem he does, according to this article (http://freebeacon.com/a-lonely-flake/).

Anti-Neocon, you are citing a neo-conservative propaganda outlet.

[supermario21]

I've read some articles, and I swear outside groups are trying to spin the situation. They made it seem Rand supported sanctions by quoting a staffer saying "Sen. Paul has supported sanctions in the past and will be looking at these." He's not a cosponsor. If you compiled quotes I'd say he leans no.

[Brian4Liberty]

...

So it's clear to me that Paul and Flake have taken the same position, the article in question is being dishonest in its title, and it is a hack job to try to pressure both Paul and Flake to support the bill so that neither will be the last hold out opposing it.


I was critical of Rand before anybody else. But then I realized what he was actually doing. And I don't mind controversy. The thread title doesn't fit the content of the article though. From the look of "Freebeacon" it seems to be a teocon/neocon site and the purpose of the article was to put pressure on Jeff Flake. It was a "divide and conquer" tactic on the only two senators with anything of a conscience.

The neo-conservatives change the names of their outlets, foundations and projects every few years, after they are discredited or reveal that they are really big government socialists. Free Beacon is like the new Weekly Standard. It's Bill Kristol affiliated.

[Christian Liberty]

We will see. Rand is interesting in his approach to politics to say the least.

I don't think there's really anything complicated about it. I think its as simple as "Rand Paul has some liberty minded ideas, but some of them aren't and he's not a clone of his dad." Of course, some will throw out that "99%" comment by Ron as if it were actually a Biblical quote.

[Brett85]

Really, Rand has been solid on every foreign policy issue except for Iran. I guess it all comes down to Israel and Rand not wanting to be labeled an "anti Israel anti Semite" or what other labels and insults they threw at Ron when he was running.

[Occam's Banana]

There is no way Rand will be president without a major political party backing him. This is not to be construed as a negative for Rand but rather a dose of reality for those that think he doesn't need to be a politician to get elected.

Yes, it *is* to be construed as a negative. And that is precisely why Rand should NOT run for President - and why people should stop obsessing so damned much over the damned Presidency.

Here's a "dose of reality" for those who insist on excusing Rand for his allegedly necessary peccadilloes: if Rand is not able to win POTUS on the strength of bottom-up support (by sticking to grassroots principles, among other things), and can only win POTUS by becoming a wishy-washy "don't offend the establishment" panderer, then he is NOT going to end up being anything other than a wishy-washy "don't offend the establishment" President.

To hell with POTUS! We need more Liberty people in Congress and elsewhere (especially the state legislatures).
And we need the people we've already got in those positions (such as Rand, Amash, etc.) to stay where they are!
Until we have achieved sufficient breadth of mass, all this POTUS-mania is just pie-in-the-sky BS.

When you send the vanguard of your forces too far out ahead of the main body of your army, you'd better be prepared for that vanguard to be captured by the enemy. That increasingly appears to be exacly the situation with Rand and his presidential aspirations.

[compromise]

I was critical of Rand before anybody else. But then I realized what he was actually doing. And I don't mind controversy. The thread title doesn't fit the content of the article though. From the look of "Freebeacon" it seems to be a teocon/neocon site and the purpose of the article was to put pressure on Jeff Flake. It was a "divide and conquer" tactic on the only two senators with anything of a conscience.

The Free Beacon is openly anti-Tea Party.

They represent the views of the Peter King Republicans.

[Brett85]

The thing about this is that if Rand votes for this, it's really hard for us to sell Rand to the kind of independents and Democrats that Ron won over with his anti war stances. The left wing blogosphere is strongly against this bill and putting pressure on members of Congress to vote against it. I realize that Rand has to win the GOP primary and win over Republicans first, but if he has to pander to the neocons to this extent to win the GOP primary, he won't appeal nearly as much to independents and Democrats in a general election.

[Christian Liberty]

Really, Rand has been solid on every foreign policy issue except for Iran. I guess it all comes down to Israel and Rand not wanting to be labeled an "anti Israel anti Semite" or what other labels and insults they threw at Ron when he was running.

I'm not voting for an Israel-worshipper. you do what you want.

That is precisely why Rand should NOT run for President - and why people should stop obsessing so damned much over the damned Presidency.

Here's a "dose of reality" for those who insist on excusing Rand for his allegedly necessary peccadilloes: if Rand is not able to win POTUS on the strength of bottom-up support (by sticking to grassroots principles), and can only win POTUS by becoming a wishy-washy "don't offend the establishment" panderer, then he is NOT going to end up being anything other than a wishy-washy "don't offend the establishment" President.

To hell with POTUS! We need more Liberty people in Congress and elsewhere (especially the state legislatures).
And we need the people we've already got in those positions (such as Rand, Amash, etc.) to stay there!
Until we have achieved sufficient breadth of mass, all this POTUS-mania is just pie-in-the-sky BS.

When you send the vanguard of your forces too far out ahead of the main body of your army, you'd better be prepared for that vanguard to be captured by the enemy. That increasingly appears to be exacly the situation with Rand and his presidential aspirations.

I agree.

[Christian Liberty]

The thing about this is that if Rand votes for this, it's really hard for us to sell Rand to the kind of independents and Democrats that Ron won over with his anti war stances. The left wing blogosphere is strongly against this bill and putting pressure on members of Congress to vote against it. I realize that Rand has to win the GOP primary and win over Republicans first, but if he has to pander to the neocons to this extent to win the GOP primary, he won't appeal nearly as much to independents and Democrats in a general election.

Nevermind that its not actually WORTH winning if you have to pander that much to the neocons.

[Brett85]

I'm not voting for an Israel-worshipper. you do what you want.

I think you're taking your criticism too far. He's not an "Israel-worshipper," but just someone who doesn't want to get the label of being "anti Israel," like Ron got.

That said, I still don't think that's an excuse to vote in favor of this bill.

[Christian Liberty]

I think you're taking your criticism too far. He's not an "Israel-worshipper," but just someone who doesn't want to get the label as being "anti Israel," like Ron got.

That said, I still don't think that's an excuse to vote in favor of this bill.

I guess I agree with you that saying that about Rand himself is going too far. But practically all of US foreign policy warps around Israel, and that's utterly unacceptable. The kind of people who are actually OK with that, the people that Rand is pandering to here, are indeed Israel-worshippers. The people who think Israel is "God's Chosen Nation" and thus that America not bowing before Israel's every whim are in rebellion against God are Israel-worshippers. Does Rand genuinely hold these positions? Probably not. But it doesn't really matter if he votes like he does. Maybe you're better than me, but I can't read minds:p I can only go by what's in front of me. And the way I see it, if Rand votes like an Israel-worshipper in order to pander to them right now, he's going to be doing it forever. I seriously doubt there's any scenario where he panders to them now, but refuses to do so later. Power corrupts and all that.

[Brett85]

The people who think Israel is "God's Chosen Nation" and thus that America not bowing before Israel's every whim are in rebellion against God are Israel-worshippers.

I'm not sure that I necessarily even disagree with that theologically, but I don't see any verse in the Bible that says that it's somehow the responsibility of the U.S government to provide for Israel's defense and to start wars for their benefit. I think that if Israel really is God's chosen nation, then God will take care of them and provide for them.

[compromise]

Could this be the return of the old Jeff Flake?

I sure hope so.

[LibertyEagle]

@jmdrake- I didn't even read it, I just saw by the title that this was going to be controversial. That said, my patience with Rand has basically run out. I'm not going to get further into this in Rand's subforum.

Oh really? Then what is all this crap?


The problem is, the paradigm shift in the direction of "statism" is so extreme in this country that if you won't "sacrifice yourself politically" for something that less than 33 other senators believe in, you aren't worth my time in my book. If you're willing to support someone who panders and is willing to compromise on all his principles in order to get elected, that's fine, but I'm not. If Rand votes yes on sanctions while we are in negotiations, I am almost certainly done supporting him, barring some extreme development that I don't anticipate.

Now: I'm done posting in this thread, because this forum is supposed to be for supporters of Rand, which I'm really not ATM.

Yet, still more.


I'd be shocked if he actually voted against the sanctions. Of course, most will excuse it as "political expediency" or what have you. I won't.


Obama has said he would veto these sanctions. That Rand is even "not ruling them out" makes him worse than Obama on this issue. That's pathetic any way you look at it.

Yep.


Exactly.

Its one thing where Rand is the best in the senate on an issue, but he's still not good enough, its another thing entirely when Rand is actually more of a hawk than the President. I hope he votes the right way, but I ain't holding my breath.


I don't think there's really anything complicated about it. I think its as simple as "Rand Paul has some liberty minded ideas, but some of them aren't and he's not a clone of his dad." Of course, some will throw out that "99%" comment by Ron as if it were actually a Biblical quote.


I'm not voting for an Israel-worshipper. you do what you want.

I agree.


Nevermind that its not actually WORTH winning if you have to pander that much to the neocons.


I guess I agree with you that saying that about Rand himself is going too far. But practically all of US foreign policy warps around Israel, and that's utterly unacceptable. The kind of people who are actually OK with that, the people that Rand is pandering to here, are indeed Israel-worshippers. The people who think Israel is "God's Chosen Nation" and thus that America not bowing before Israel's every whim are in rebellion against God are Israel-worshippers. Does Rand genuinely hold these positions? Probably not. But it doesn't really matter if he votes like he does. Maybe you're better than me, but I can't read minds:p I can only go by what's in front of me. And the way I see it, if Rand votes like an Israel-worshipper in order to pander to them right now, he's going to be doing it forever. I seriously doubt there's any scenario where he panders to them now, but refuses to do so later. Power corrupts and all that.

Did you not understand Bryan when he told you that Rand's subforum was not for you to tear down Rand? We all know you're not going to vote for him. You've told us more than 100 times. Are you simply unable to control yourself?

[Rudeman]

Obama has said he would veto these sanctions. That Rand is even "not ruling them out" makes him worse than Obama on this issue. That's pathetic any way you look at it.


Yep.

Obama is not going to undermine his own negotiations. If you dislike Rand so much why do you continue to post so much in his forum? Also you mention that you can't criticize Rand in his forum then go on to criticize him.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure that I necessarily even disagree with that theologically, but I don't see any verse in the Bible that says that it's somehow the responsibility of the U.S government to provide for Israel's defense and to start wars for their benefit. I think that if Israel really is God's chosen nation, then God will take care of them and provide for them.

I do disagree with that theologically, but my thought was a complete thought. You may agree with the first part of the statement, but you don't agree with the second part of it, so I wasn't attacking you.

That said, I STRONGLY believe that Israel is to the Old Testament what the church is to the New Testament.

[Christian Liberty]

Obama is not going to undermine his own negotiations. If you dislike Rand so much why do you continue to post so much in his forum? Also you mention that you can't criticize Rand in his forum then go on to criticize him.

I'm trying to follow the rule despite the fact that I believe it was really, really stupid to have a thread like this in Rand's subforum if that's the rule. But, I'm getting sucked into it. I already reported post #3 (My own post, drawing it to the mods attention) and I'm hoping they agree with me that this thread should not be here.

[jmdrake]

Obama has said he would veto these sanctions. That Rand is even "not ruling them out" makes him worse than Obama on this issue. That's pathetic any way you look at it.


Yep.

Okay. I know you didn't read the article, but please at least try to understand it from a bullet point perspective.

1) Jeff Flake and Rand Paul are the two remaining republican senators who have not signed on to sanctions.

2) The author of the article admits this in the article.

3) The author of the article tries to pretend that Paul and Flake are at odds when that is not at all true.

4) The author of the article is clearly trying to pressure Jeff Flake into giving in by painting the illusion that Jeff Flake is the last hold out when that is not true.

5) There is zero difference between Jeff Flake's position and Rand Paul's position.

Now as to whether or not Rand is "worse than Obama" on this issue, consider this. If the other side is really up to 77 votes, which I doubt, Obama's veto threat will not matter. How to keep the other side from reaching a veto proof majority? Those still willing to vote against new sanctions, including Rand Paul and Jeff Flake, need to know they aren't alone. It's a delicate game of chicken. And people overreacting and claiming Rand supports sanctions during negotiations, when his said no such thing, are really undermining Jeff Flake. Flake probably doesn't read the forum anyway so the damage is minimal I suppose. But the OP linking to what is clearly a dishonest propaganda hit piece aimed at undermining Jeff Flake did not do the non-interventionist cause any favors.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm trying to follow the rule despite the fact that I believe it was really, really stupid to have a thread like this in Rand's subforum if that's the rule. But, I'm getting sucked into it. I already reported post #3 (My own post, drawing it to the mods attention) and I'm hoping they agree with me that this thread should not be here.

You are NOT following the rule. If you were following the rule, you wouldn't have posted what you did in this thread in Rand's subforum. If you were just dying to get in your bashes, then you should have lobbied to have the thread moved and controlled yourself until it was.

[jmdrake]

Oh really? Then what is all this crap?



Yet, still more.















Did you not understand Bryan when he told you that Rand's subforum was not for you to tear down Rand? We all know you're not going to vote for him. You've told us more than 100 times. Are you simply unable to control yourself?

Well FF is right to point out that if the forum policy is "don't tear down Rand in his own subforum" then this thread, which started off with an attack on Rand, should have never been posted in Rand's subforum and it should be moved. FF says he already reported the thread. I suggest you do as well.

[Rudeman]

I'm trying to follow the rule despite the fact that I believe it was really, really stupid to have a thread like this in Rand's subforum if that's the rule. But, I'm getting sucked into it. I already reported post #3 (My own post, drawing it to the mods attention) and I'm hoping they agree with me that this thread should not be here.


No one is forcing you to post in this thread. The thread fits just fine where it is, just because you want to bash Rand isn't a reason to move it. I'm not even sure why you're in this forum so much if you're tempted so easily, seems like it would be best to avoid.

[Rudeman]

double post.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Really, Rand has been solid on every foreign policy issue except for Iran. I guess it all comes down to Israel and Rand not wanting to be labeled an "anti Israel anti Semite" or what other labels and insults they threw at Ron when he was running.

He gave support to a Libya resolution, before the no-fly zone language was added, that called for Gaddafi's removal (and even provisions necessary for his removal), and for support of rebels in other regions.

[Brett85]

He gave support to a Libya resolution, before the no-fly zone language was added, that called for Gaddafi's removal (and even provisions necessary for his removal), and for support of rebels in other regions.

That was a non binding resolution, and there was no roll call vote on it. It was passed in secret and no Senator even had a chance to object to it, from what I understand.

[Feeding the Abscess]

That was a non binding resolution, and there was no roll call vote on it. It was passed in secret and no Senator even had a chance to object to it, from what I understand.

It was sent to all of the Senator's offices, as every other piece of legislation is. He could have placed a hold on it then. He didn't.

[dillo]

Make AIPAC register as a foreign government and this bill wouldn't exist

[jtstellar]

Did you not understand Bryan when he told you that Rand's subforum was not for you to tear down Rand? We all know you're not going to vote for him. You've told us more than 100 times. Are you simply unable to control yourself?

lol he isn't ably tearing down anybody.. he just has more time than anybody else to always get the last word in on a 10 page thread. he will probably be gone by the time he graduates into the job market

[compromise]

We all know you're not going to vote for him.

He IS going to vote for him. FF and people like him always whine for a few weeks after stuff like this, but in the end they will vote for Rand.

[jtstellar]

He IS going to vote for him. FF and people like him always whine for a few weeks after stuff like this, but in the end they will vote for Rand.

guess i don't feel attached enough to give a darn one way or the other.. what is 'm gonna do if he doesn't vote for him, come up the next day and wave it like a badge? if he can do that you guys honestly are walking too close to each other

dailypaul on the other hand is a different story, entirely (nystorm's failed attempt to turn himself into the american idol of politics)