PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul just gave one of the most important foreign policy speeches in decades




Lucille
10-24-2014, 09:45 AM
http://www.vox.com/2014/10/24/7053561/rand-paul-foreign-policy-speech


Sen. Rand Paul just gave one of the most important speeches on foreign policy since George W. Bush declared war on Iraq. But instead of declaring war on another country, Paul declared war on his own party. Or, at least, its entire approach to foreign policy.

In his address last night at the Center for the National Interest — a think tank founded by Richard Nixon — Paul gave, for the first time, a comprehensive picture of how he thinks about foreign policy. His moderate non-interventionism is a far cry from his father's absolutist desire for America to exit the world stage. But Paul's stance is light years away from the hyper-hawk neoconservatism that's dominated Republican foreign policy thinking for decades.

Paul is signaling that, when he runs for president in 2016, he isn't going to move toward the Republican foreign policy consensus; he's going to run at it, with a battering ram. If he wins, he could remake the Republican Party as we know it. But if he loses, this speech may well be the reason.
[...]
In the abstract, this doesn't tell you a whole lot about what Paul believes. But when he gives specific examples of where he agrees and disagrees with Obama's policy, the core idea becomes clearer: Paul wants to scale down American commitments to foreign wars.

Paul endorses the original decision to invade Afghanistan, but criticizes Obama's decision to escalate it. He savaged the Libya intervention, calling Libya today "a jihadist wonderland." He supports bombing ISIS, but blasted Obama's decision to arm the Syrian rebels: "the weapons are either indiscriminately given to 'less than moderate rebels' or simply taken from moderates by ISIS."

But Paul also, much more quietly, agrees with major parts of the Obama agenda. In a move that's bound to infuriate Republican hardliners, he's calling for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. He tacitly endorsed Obama's sanction-and-negotiate approach to the Ukraine crisis. And he called for a peaceful, cooperative relationship with China.

In Paul's ideal world, America only very rarely engages in war. Most of its relations with foreign powers are conducted via diplomacy and trade with other states. This is hardly a detailed theory of how to conduct American foreign policy, but it is absolutely a conservative vision for ramping down America's role in the world.

The Obama-bashing reveals Paul's real target: the GOP

Paul's agenda has a lot more in common with Barack Obama's view of the world than it does with, say, John McCain's. But his speech very cleverly played up the criticisms of Obama, and minimized the points of agreement. That's because the basic goal of the speech was to teach conservatives that they can oppose foreign wars and Democrats at the same time.

The real target of Paul's speech were the neoconservatives: the wing of the GOP that believes that American foreign policy should be about the aggressive use of American force and influence, be it against terrorist groups or Russia. Paul's unsubtle argument is that this view, dominant in the GOP, is a departure from what a conservative foreign policy ought to be.

His tactic for selling this argument is innovative. He's reframed arguments with neoconservatives as arguments with Obama, banking on the idea that he can get everyday Republicans to abandon hawkishness altogether if they see Obama as a hawk. "After the tragedies of Iraq and Libya, Americans are right to expect more from their country when we go to war," Paul said, clearly linking his critique of Obama to an attack on the Bush legacy.

Until this speech, Paul's 2016 foreign policy positions hadn't been clear. Now it is. Rand "clearly wants a more restrained US foreign policy," says Dan McCarthy, the editor of The American Conservative magazine. According to McCarthy, who's talked about these issues with Paul's staff, Paul has been engaged in a "trial and error" experiment. The idea is to figure out how to make a less aggressive foreign policy politically viable in the Republican Party.

After this speech, the testing phase appears to be over. According to his advisors, this speech represents the final, overarching framework for Paul's worldview. Rand has developed a strategy for wrenching conservatives away from the Bush legacy, and it's now a question of implementing it.

The stakes in the Paul-GOP fight are tectonic

Paul is setting the terms of the 2016 election. So far, every plausible Republican nominee who's spoken about foreign policy has taken a more hawkish tack. Paul has picked a fight on foreign policy, and now he's going to get one.

The Republican primary, then, will be at least partly a referendum on the future of Republican foreign policy. If Paul wins the primary — let alone the presidency — then the GOP and its elected officials will have to line up behind him. That will mean defending his foreign policy against Democrats, who will likely blast Paul from an interventionist point of view.

"Paul's been clear about his goal," DNC Press Secretary Michael Czin told reporters before the speech. "He wants to see America retreat from our responsibilities around the world." A Paul primary win would force Republicans around the country to line up behind Paul's non-interventionism against these attacks. It might also lead the Democratic Party to become more hawkish as it unites against Paul's philosophies — and that's particularly true if Hillary Clinton, who is already on the more hawkish side of the Democratic spectrum, is the nominee.

"Rand is the first guy," McCarthy says, "to have a chance to come in and do something different than what our foreign policy has been doing in 70 or more years." He's not wrong.


Rand Paul: The Case for Foreign-Policy "Realism"
Rand Paul | October 24, 2014
http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/24/rand-paul-the-case-for-foreign-policy-re

ETA video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9I1Vej9sbgQ

CaptUSA
10-24-2014, 09:53 AM
the basic goal of the speech was to teach conservatives that they can oppose foreign wars and Democrats at the same time.

And that's why it's going to work. He's not going against Obama or the GOP - he's laying down the gauntlet against the establishment of both parties.

Remember that they're going to come out swinging... Time to make sure we have his back.

specsaregood
10-24-2014, 09:55 AM
"Paul's been clear about his goal," DNC Press Secretary Michael Czin told reporters before the speech. "He wants to see America retreat from our responsibilities around the world."

So did the DNC just go and hire the GOP staff after Bush left office? Just hire their scriptwriters?

CaptUSA
10-24-2014, 10:03 AM
So did the DNC just go and hire the GOP staff after Bush left office? Just hire their scriptwriters?

Lol... How perfect, though, right?!

Exposes both faces of the establishment at once.

specsaregood
10-24-2014, 10:09 AM
Lol... How perfect, though, right?!

Exposes both faces of the establishment at once.

Even better was this same guy a couple months ago in response to Randal's WSJ editorial:


Below please find a response from DNC National Press Secretary Michael Czin to Paul’s vision:

“It’s disappointing that Rand Paul, as a Senator and a potential presidential candidate, blames America for all the problems in the world, while offering reckless ideas that would only alienate us from the global community.

“Unfortunately, this is nothing new for Paul. Last week he criticized American policy to the president of another country on foreign soil. This week he’s blaming the Obama Administration for another nation’s civil war. That type of “blame America” rhetoric may win Paul accolades at a conference of isolationists but it does nothing to improve our standing in the world. In fact, Paul’s proposals would make America less safe and less secure.

“Simply put, if Rand Paul had a foreign policy slogan, it would be – The Rand Paul Doctrine: Blame America. Retreat from the World.”
seriously, at least people that voted for Bush and his humble foreign policy had the "9/11 changed everything" excuse. The people that voted for Obama don't even have that.

CaptUSA
10-24-2014, 10:16 AM
Even better was this same guy a couple months ago in response to Randal's WSJ editorial:

seriously, at least people that voted for Bush and his humble foreign policy had the "9/11 changed everything" excuse. The people that voted for Obama don't even have that.

It's clear that Hillary's people are scared to death of Rand Paul. Their line of attack is going to be that he is dangerous and his worldview would cause another 9-11.

The problem with that is that he can easily ask people if the world is a safer place now. And if they go back to the time before 9-11 to try to draw a distinction, guess who was in office then?

Lol. This is going to be a fun few years!

acptulsa
10-24-2014, 10:17 AM
We can’t retreat from the world, but we can’t remake it in our own image either.--Rand Paul

This one's worth spreading around. In fact, this will be my response to everyone I hear calling a non-interventionalist an 'isolationist'.

specsaregood
10-24-2014, 10:21 AM
Lol. This is going to be a fun few years!

If I wasn't already working on enough nonpaying side projects, I might be ambitious enough to take this Michael Czin douche's comments and find the DNC responses to those same lines when GOP spin artists were saying them. And links to the GOP people saying the exact same things in the first place. would be a fun little write-up even if time consuming.

TheTyke
10-24-2014, 10:22 AM
And that's why it's going to work. He's not going against Obama or the GOP - he's laying down the gauntlet against the establishment of both parties.

Remember that they're going to come out swinging... Time to make sure we have his back.

Well said!

Peace&Freedom
10-24-2014, 10:54 AM
I remember seeing Rand Paul on TV with a journalist at a focus group following one of the GOP debates in 2011-12, discussing how Ron was received on foreign policy issues. When the results showed the group was swayed more by interventionist catch phrases, Rand remarked, "I see we have our work cut out for us." I think Rand has not forgotten the problem that neo-cons have set the emotional table of "we're under a threat, we have to fight back!" as the main framework for foreign policy.

Accordingly, Rand has been working hard to finesse that framework (instead of trying to combat its emotionalism head on with reason, as Ron did with almost no success). I would say Rand's approach is still incomplete, in that he de-emphasizes or avoids the role of covert activity in creating the pretexts to justify ongoing intervention (false flags and black ops, training and funding Al Qaeda and ISIS, etc). Countering the fear based "we're being threatened" with an anger based, "no, we've been lied to about a threat" is the best way to battle the pro-war framework.

Notice how well the "we were lied to about Iraq's WMDs" line worked, compared to any other anti-interventionist method of challenging the War Party. If Rand could simply ping on that, we would be well on the way to deflating the "threat, threat, threat" framing rhetoric of the establishment.

luctor-et-emergo
10-24-2014, 11:13 AM
It's clear that Hillary's people are scared to death of Rand Paul. Their line of attack is going to be that he is dangerous and his worldview would cause another 9-11.

The problem with that is that he can easily ask people if the world is a safer place now. And if they go back to the time before 9-11 to try to draw a distinction, guess who was in office then?

Lol. This is going to be a fun few years!

Even the establishment with all it's money and power can't keep running away from the truth forever. They have been running away from this ever since 9/11 basically. 2016 is in my opinion going to be the turning point. The point at which their arguments have become old and the people at large stop accepting them. That is the point at which they will make one last stand on their flawed arguments and non-existant principles. That is the moment 'we' can have a landslide victory over the establishment. Best part about it, they are, like always, digging their own hole. At this point, metaphorically speaking the hole has been dug deep enough that there is no more climbing out of it, they can only dig it deeper until it collapses.

What this means in practical terms is that 'we' have to go head to head with these arguments, don't shrink away from them because 'we' fear the uninformed masses. Even the masses at some change their opinion, not out of logic but simply because human development, culture and politics have never been static. These are all highly dynamic and the population will follow the trend-lines.

'Our' only disadvantage is that politics is not about bringing truth but kneading the masses into taking your message as gospel. If we want to win we will have to find a way to mould our message in such away that it can be perceived as gospel, totally convincing people of the need to join us and vote for our cause. We have to do this in a manner that does not betray our principals, this in fact is the hardest part about getting liberty-in whatever form- elected.

This is certainly going to be fun and as long as we will keep having fun there is absolutely nothing to keep our spirits down, which is vital in getting elected. Nobody votes for someone who doesn't breathe winning. Well, except for 'us' here maybe.

CaptUSA
10-24-2014, 11:17 AM
Countering the fear based "we're being threatened" with an anger based, "no, we've been lied to about a threat" is the best way to battle the pro-war framework.

Notice how well the "we were lied to about Iraq's WMDs" line worked, compared to any other anti-interventionist method of challenging the War Party. If Rand could simply ping on that, we would be well on the way to deflating the "threat, threat, threat" framing rhetoric of the establishment.

Interesting, but I think that approach is best left to the left wing. Allow the Democrats to make that point, while making the point of a more measured response. It'll work better in a GOP primary, but your approach will help in the general.

Brian4Liberty
10-24-2014, 02:06 PM
Foreign Policy Hawkishness Is a Dead End for the GOP (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/foreign-policy-hawkishness-is-a-dead-end-for-the-gop/)

alucard13mm
10-24-2014, 03:24 PM
I think Rand should be stronger if we get attacked like...

"We should mind our own business, but if a country or organization attacks us first, we will respond by bombing and killing them, kill their families/friends and destroy their homes and living. Kill all of them."

I believe in a strong response if someone does try to do something or attack USA, but we should be neutral for the majority of the time. I believe if we go to war, we gotta win. War is about killing people until the people don't want to fight anymore. Not fucking nation building and worrying about casualties (which increases the time we are at war).

Let's say in 1 year, we don't care about civilian casaulties. We kill 100,000 innocent people to defeat/kill our enemy during that year, but we achieve victory. I think that is way better than being very careful, and maybe kill 1,000 civilians a year for the next 10 years (10,000 total). WHY? Would you want to live in constant fear for the next 10 years? Worrying about getting droned or airstriked. Worrying about "terrorists" setting road bombs meant for the invading force, but instead you or a love one get's killed by accident by the road bomb? I know we don't deliberately target civlians, but we shouldn't worry about them too much.

Living in fear for 1 year or Living in fear for 10 years? Your pick.

acptulsa
10-24-2014, 03:37 PM
"People talk peace, but men give their life's work to war. It won't stop 'til there is as much brains and scientific study put to aid peace as there is to promote war."--Will Rogers 1929


'Proposals for promoting the peace of the world will have careful consideration. But we are not a people who are always seeking for a sign. We know that peace comes from honesty and fair dealing, from moderation, and a generous regard for the rights of others. The heart of the Nation is more important than treaties.'--Calvin Coolidge


"We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others."--Will Rogers 1923

Generations of Americans used the phrase 'peace and prosperity'. These days it seems like we've not only lost sight of the true fact that peace leads to prosperity, but to the fact that peace is more desirable even than prosperity--it saves the lives of our sons, and any Christian should be able to recognize that it isn't as hard on the soul as being a part of a community that's busy spending all its resources kicking some other community's asses. What the fuck happened?

This is 'progress'? Progressing down the garden path--traveling down the road to hell, whatever it amy be paved with--is 'progress'?

I think the 'we've been lied to' approach has merit. But to me, the biggest problem with the approach our opponents mischaracterize as the 'Blame America First' dialog is that no one is following up by finding an effective way to ask, what kind of monsters have we become?

I don't want Rand Paul to do this, as I don't see a way to do it and win. But it's high time somebody started asking that question and making it stick. And I think Sen. Paul's engaged but not remaking in our image statement opens the door for us to do so.


"It always will seem funny to us United Staters that we are about the only ones that really know how to do everything right. I don't know how a lot of these other nations have existed as long as they have 'til we could get some of our people around and show them really how to be pure and good like us."--Will Rogers 1932

devil21
10-24-2014, 04:43 PM
Im glad he stepped up and made some clear distinctions at this crucial point in history regarding his foreign policy. I don't particularly like playing along with some of the CIA/media created charades such as 'ISIS' but I understand why he's doing it at this time. He's very good and this speech needed to be made, since both party establishments are tripping over themselves to prove how hawkish they are.

(note: lots of trolls starting shit on this thread in later pages....they must be worried)

twomp
10-24-2014, 05:02 PM
I think Rand should be stronger if we get attacked like...

"We should mind our own business, but if a country or organization attacks us first, we will respond by bombing and killing them, kill their families/friends and destroy their homes and living. Kill all of them."

I believe in a strong response if someone does try to do something or attack USA, but we should be neutral for the majority of the time. I believe if we go to war, we gotta win. War is about killing people until the people don't want to fight anymore. Not fucking nation building and worrying about casualties (which increases the time we are at war).

Let's say in 1 year, we don't care about civilian casaulties. We kill 100,000 innocent people to defeat/kill our enemy during that year, but we achieve victory. I think that is way better than being very careful, and maybe kill 1,000 civilians a year for the next 10 years (10,000 total). WHY? Would you want to live in constant fear for the next 10 years? Worrying about getting droned or airstriked. Worrying about "terrorists" setting road bombs meant for the invading force, but instead you or a love one get's killed by accident by the road bomb? I know we don't deliberately target civlians, but we shouldn't worry about them too much.

Living in fear for 1 year or Living in fear for 10 years? Your pick.

Sounds great! What about the part where after that 1 year is over, you would have created even MORE enemies for yourself. Do you think 100,000 people can go missing without anyone noticing or wanting revenge? Actions have consequences. You seem to have forgotten to discuss about the consequences part. Unless you are talking about outright genocide. Kill every last one of them on earth. But then again, I'm sure there will be blow back from that as well.

CPUd
10-24-2014, 05:11 PM
This is going to be interesting, most candidates from the GOP have to shift positions between the primary and the general election. I don't see Rand having to do anything like that yet.

Peace&Freedom
10-24-2014, 05:32 PM
Sounds great! What about the part where after that 1 year is over, you would have created even MORE enemies for yourself. Do you think 100,000 people can go missing without anyone noticing or wanting revenge? Actions have consequences. You seem to have forgotten to discuss about the consequences part. Unless you are talking about outright genocide. Kill every last one of them on earth. But then again, I'm sure there will be blow back from that as well.

Blowback arguments preach to the choir, they don't change minds, as they don't challenge the pro-intervention framework. If you're under the "we were attacked, so we've got to fight back!" spell, you don't care about blowback, just as if you are the victim of a crime, you don't care about the motivation of the criminal. The main issue for you is getting the bad guy, and you view people who bring up "understanding the perpetrator" as morons who are majoring in the minors. This is why Ron Paul got basically nowhere with Republican voters on the issue, in two sets of primaries---he sounded like he was not properly responding to geopolitical threats.

To fight the pro-war framework, you have to challenge its legitimacy. You have to say THERE IS NO THREAT, the wars are based on lies, in reply to the emotions raised by the "we're under a threat" side, which drown out reason. Measured words are not enough, to fight off the emotional call for retaliation. "Pleasure and revenge/ Have ears more deaf than adders to the voice/ Of any true decision." Rand has to change the emotions surrounding current foreign policy to get it out of the pro-war zone, not finesse the issue on their home turf.

Brett85
10-24-2014, 05:34 PM
There isn't a single other Republican who's going to be running in 2016 who even has a remotely decent foreign policy, from what I can see. Rand is going to be on his own in promoting a foreign policy that isn't just completely belligerent.

Occam's Banana
10-24-2014, 05:40 PM
Let's say in 1 year, we don't care about civilian casaulties. We kill 100,000 innocent people to defeat/kill our enemy during that year, but we achieve victory. I think that is way better than being very careful, and maybe kill 1,000 civilians a year for the next 10 years (10,000 total). WHY? Would you want to live in constant fear for the next 10 years? Worrying about getting droned or airstriked. Worrying about "terrorists" setting road bombs meant for the invading force, but instead you or a love one get's killed by accident by the road bomb? I know we don't deliberately target civlians, but we shouldn't worry about them too much.

Living in fear for 1 year or Living in fear for 10 years? Your pick.
Sounds great! What about the part where after that 1 year is over, you would have created even MORE enemies for yourself. Do you think 100,000 people can go missing without anyone noticing or wanting revenge? Actions have consequences. You seem to have forgotten to discuss about the consequences part. Unless you are talking about outright genocide. Kill every last one of them on earth. But then again, I'm sure there will be blow back from that as well.

I will never understand people who think they can sanely do utilitarian "calculus" when it comes to killing innocents (especially the ones who are able to twist themselves into imagining that it's really what "you" would want if "you" were one of the innocents).

Brett85
10-24-2014, 05:45 PM
I say bring it on if the Democrats want to take the neocon/warmongering position on foreign policy against Rand. Rand will clean their clock and completely transform the political landscape.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rand-paul-makes-his-case-foreign-policy

Democrats, preparing for a likely run by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are already signaling that they’ll use Paul’s foreign policy pronouncements over the years to portray him as an isolationist kook. “Paul’s been clear about his goal: he wants to see America retreat from our responsibilities around the world,” Democratic National Committee spokesman Michael Czin said in a statement before Paul’s speech. “That includes support for a fringe proposal to end our membership in the United Nations, ending all aid to our allies like Israel and slashing programs that help developing nations combat major public health crises.”

jjdoyle
10-24-2014, 05:52 PM
There isn't a single other Republican who's going to be running in 2016 who even has a remotely decent foreign policy, from what I can see. Rand is going to be on his own in promoting a foreign policy that isn't just completely belligerent.

Ted Cruz? How do Rand and Ted differ on foreign policy now, in actual VOTES? Same with Mike Huckabee? Ben Carson? Even Chris Christie? The neo-cons have co-opted EVERYTHING since President Obama was elected, and are acting all (fake) conservative now.

The voters are ignorant, and don't think. They do as instructed by the media figures they watch and listen to. And, I don't see anything to show me that the media is on "our" side.

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2014, 05:55 PM
This one's worth spreading around. In fact, this will be my response to everyone I hear calling a non-interventionalist an 'isolationist'.
Rand Paul is not a non-interventionist.

Brett85
10-24-2014, 06:03 PM
Ted Cruz? How do Rand and Ted differ on foreign policy now, in actual VOTES? Same with Mike Huckabee? Ben Carson? Even Chris Christie? The neo-cons have co-opted EVERYTHING since President Obama was elected, and are acting all (fake) conservative now.

The voters are ignorant, and don't think. They do as instructed by the media figures they watch and listen to. And, I don't see anything to show me that the media is on "our" side.

Cruz is much more hawkish towards Iran and won't say whether or not it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Rand has said that the Iraq War was a huge mistake and is also much more supportive of diplomacy with Iran than Cruz. Cruz wants to blow up the negotiations and impose new sanctions on them immediately and possibly attack them. Rand also has made it clear recently that he ultimately supports phasing out all foreign aid, while Cruz has said that we should increase aid to Israel. That's probably just a start.

jjdoyle
10-24-2014, 06:18 PM
Cruz is much more hawkish towards Iran and won't say whether or not it was a good idea to invade Iraq. Rand has said that the Iraq War was a huge mistake and is also much more supportive of diplomacy with Iran than Cruz. Cruz wants to blow up the negotiations and impose new sanctions on them immediately and possibly attack them. Rand also has made it clear recently that he ultimately supports phasing out all foreign aid, while Cruz has said that we should increase aid to Israel. That's probably just a start.

Saying and doing. What difference in votes do they have? Rand voted for MORE foreign aid to Israel, just like very other Senator.
Rand talked about blowback, but ignores ONE of the THREE main reasons given for the attack on 9/11 by voting for MORE aid to Israel?

Rand talked about a bankrupt nation in this, and voted for MORE foreign aid to Israel?

Rand needs a speech coach IMO that gives him better talking points on foreign policy, and that doesn't RUN from what his dad's CONSTITUTIONAL position was.
Foreign aid to Israel. Sanctions on Russia. Supporting airstrikes on ISIS/ISIL/CIA-DUH.

Ben Carson was against Iraq, and apparently even against going into Afghanistan:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/19/ben-carsons-most-surprising-policy-positions/

So no, if someone like Carson or Cruz run in 2016, Rand won't be the only Republican that
"even has a remotely decent foreign policy".

At least on paper. Which is why he needs to separate himself from others, and he hasn't been doing that, especially with the things I listed above.

Brett85
10-24-2014, 06:24 PM
There aren't hardly any votes in the Senate anymore, since Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate and doesn't allow votes on hardly anything.

There was no roll call vote on foreign aid to Israel. There was a bill that passed by voice vote, which means that Rand didn't object to it. It would've been absolutely pointless since no other Senator would've voted against it.

He's also said that we should cut and end foreign aid to countries that are hostile to us and then phase out foreign aid to Israel over time. So even if he voted for temporary foreign aid to Israel, that wouldn't go against his position that we should eventually phase out foreign aid to Israel as well.

jjdoyle
10-24-2014, 06:36 PM
There aren't hardly any votes in the Senate anymore, since Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate and doesn't allow votes on hardly anything.

There was no roll call vote on foreign aid to Israel. There was a bill that passed by voice vote, which means that Rand didn't object to it. It would've been absolutely pointless since no other Senator would've voted against it.

He's also said that we should cut and end foreign aid to countries that are hostile to us and then phase out foreign aid to Israel over time. So even if he voted for temporary foreign aid to Israel, that wouldn't go against his position that we should eventually phase out foreign aid to Israel as well.

But Rand said it himself that he voted for more foreign aid to Israel, so he voted "Yea" in the vote. He said it from his own mouth. And if it is absolutely pointless to vote "Nay", because everybody else is voting "Yea", we might as well call their oath to the Constitution pointless as well. Because we know 98%+ of them don't even consider the Constitution when voting and don't actually read the bills.

The reason for voting "Nay", is because then you are principled. You can point to the $17+ trillion of debt, and say that is your reason. Rand can't do that, because he's "playing the game". It's beyond ridiculous.

Perhaps Rand should have done like Ron, and suggested, or even introduced a bill in the Senate, where the Senators could donate their salaries to Israel for the next 6 years, instead of tax payers having to pay for lousy Senators AND foreign aid. Israel would still get $51,000,000, and it would be coming from the 50 people in DC that love it so much more than you and me, and the U.S. Constitution that they took an oath to.

At least then I would be somewhat happy knowing my Senators might actually have to work to support their families, and maybe spend time away from DC doing so, doing less harm to the country.

Michael Landon
10-24-2014, 07:10 PM
Tube?

- ML

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2014, 07:13 PM
Tube?

- ML


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I1Vej9sbgQ

Transcript:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?461871-Rand-Paul-gives-foriegn-policy-address-(transcript)

Crashland
10-24-2014, 08:06 PM
But Rand said it himself that he voted for more foreign aid to Israel, so he voted "Yea" in the vote. He said it from his own mouth. And if it is absolutely pointless to vote "Nay", because everybody else is voting "Yea", we might as well call their oath to the Constitution pointless as well. Because we know 98%+ of them don't even consider the Constitution when voting and don't actually read the bills.

The reason for voting "Nay", is because then you are principled. You can point to the $17+ trillion of debt, and say that is your reason. Rand can't do that, because he's "playing the game". It's beyond ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous to do what you have to do to become the president? Rand votes Nay and he loses 10 votes in the primary for every 1 vote he gains.

jjdoyle
10-24-2014, 08:14 PM
Why is it ridiculous to do what you have to do to become the president? Rand votes Nay and he loses 10 votes in the primary for every 1 vote he gains.

I see no evidence Rand will gain 10 votes for this. If TPTB know he is playing the game, the media follows a script, and he can't separate himself from Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Ben Carson on foreign policy, he's not gaining many voters.

I understand WHY he is doing it, and it goes back to 2012's campaign and how Mitt Romney's campaign threatened to destroy Ron Paul's legacy. But, I don't see it as a benefit, because I don't see the average GOP voter as one that thinks. So, by going along to get along, he's just like the rest with little separation.

puppetmaster
10-24-2014, 08:46 PM
But Rand said it himself that he voted for more foreign aid to Israel, so he voted "Yea" in the vote. He said it from his own mouth. And if it is absolutely pointless to vote "Nay", because everybody else is voting "Yea", we might as well call their oath to the Constitution pointless as well. Because we know 98%+ of them don't even consider the Constitution when voting and don't actually read the bills.

The reason for voting "Nay", is because then you are principled. You can point to the $17+ trillion of debt, and say that is your reason. Rand can't do that, because he's "playing the game". It's beyond ridiculous.

Perhaps Rand should have done like Ron, and suggested, or even introduced a bill in the Senate, where the Senators could donate their salaries to Israel for the next 6 years, instead of tax payers having to pay for lousy Senators AND foreign aid. Israel would still get $51,000,000, and it would be coming from the 50 people in DC that love it so much more than you and me, and the U.S. Constitution that they took an oath to.

At least then I would be somewhat happy knowing my Senators might actually have to work to support their families, and maybe spend time away from DC doing so, doing less harm to the country. utopia does not exist for us or them......

HVACTech
10-24-2014, 08:54 PM
Rand Paul is not a non-interventionist.

:rolleyes:

kcchiefs6465
10-24-2014, 09:13 PM
:rolleyes:
Supporting bombing an organization that poses no existential threat to America under the auspices of protecting by and large ticks, in a region where their "vatican" insults the population each day it remains, in the country which was turned to ruins in an earlier fit of shortsighted policy, is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting the undying subsidization of Israel, a joint cyber warfare and data collection facility, and as well reaffirming that Israel will remain a focal point of American foreign policy is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting sanctions against various countries is hardly non-interventionist.

The list, if I cared to compile it, would go on and on. "Non-interventionist" is more than simply being less hawkish than your counterparts with regards to foreign policy (just so you are aware).

twomp
10-24-2014, 09:27 PM
Supporting bombing an organization that poses no existential threat to America under the auspices of protecting by and large ticks, in a region where their "vatican" insults the population each day it remains, in the country which was turned to ruins in an earlier fit of shortsighted policy, is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting the undying subsidization of Israel, a joint cyber warfare and data collection facility, and as well reaffirming that Israel will remain a focal point of American foreign policy is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting sanctions against various countries is hardly non-interventionist.

The list, if I cared to compile it, would go on and on. "Non-interventionist" is more than simply being less hawkish than your counterparts with regards to foreign policy (just so you are aware).

I agree. I think the term "part-time interventionist" is a better fit.

Vanguard101
10-24-2014, 09:42 PM
You guys don't know what non-interventionism means. Sigh.

Matt Collins
10-24-2014, 09:42 PM
Supporting bombing an organization that poses no existential threat to America under the auspices of protecting by and large ticks, in a region where their "vatican" insults the population each day it remains, in the country which was turned to ruins in an earlier fit of shortsighted policy, is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting the undying subsidization of Israel, a joint cyber warfare and data collection facility, and as well reaffirming that Israel will remain a focal point of American foreign policy is hardly non-interventionist.

Supporting sanctions against various countries is hardly non-interventionist.

The list, if I cared to compile it, would go on and on. "Non-interventionist" is more than simply being less hawkish than your counterparts with regards to foreign policy (just so you are aware).

You should learn the difference between rhetoric and policy.

Brett85
10-24-2014, 09:51 PM
I see no evidence Rand will gain 10 votes for this. If TPTB know he is playing the game, the media follows a script, and he can't separate himself from Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Ben Carson on foreign policy, he's not gaining many voters.

Saying that there's no difference between Rand and Cruz, Huckabee, and Carson on foreign policy is simply ridiculous. You don't see the neocons criticizing those guys the way they do Rand. The only Republican who is a threat to them is Rand. I already pointed out how Rand's foreign policy is quite a bit different from theirs, but whatever.

Bastiat's The Law
10-24-2014, 11:44 PM
Rand Paul is not a non-interventionist.

I feel its just the opposite. Rand is a lot more of a non-interventionist than he lets on. You'll see it when it's him against Hillary in the general.

twomp
10-25-2014, 01:04 AM
You should learn the difference between rhetoric and policy.

You should too!

anaconda
10-25-2014, 01:35 AM
I wish Senator Paul could begin to paint vivid imagery for the voters that portrays just how virulent, high tech, and lethal a purely defensive U.S. military would be. As opposed to divergent and wasteful romps around the sands of third world countries in search of market share for Exxon-Mobile. There must be some great Pentagon war game footage or defense contractor promotional footage or something that could be worked into ads.

devil21
10-25-2014, 01:48 AM
Thank you Lucille for posting this thread. +rep

Anybody have a video of the speech to spread around? I'd rather spread Rand's speech than let the shills frame the narrative ahead of it.

devil21
10-25-2014, 01:50 AM
heres's the vid. Lucille can you add it to your OP?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I1Vej9sbgQ

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2014, 06:10 AM
You should learn the difference between rhetoric and policy.
You should learn to quit insulting Rand Paul's integrity and my intelligence.

He says what he means. He votes in alignment with what he says. It isn't some conspiracy that when the time is right he's suddenly going to unveil himself as a non-interventionist, constant veto-er.

He legitimately views ISIS as a threat and thinks it is legitimate for the United States to conduct missile strikes. I disagree. Quit acting like it's some big damn charade. I've followed his speeches, his interviews, and his votes to know well enough where he stands. He is not a non-interventionist.

phill4paul
10-25-2014, 06:30 AM
You should learn to quit insulting Rand Paul's integrity and my intelligence.

He says what he means. He votes in alignment with what he says. It isn't some conspiracy that when the time is right he's suddenly going to unveil himself as a non-interventionist, constant veto-er.

He legitimately views ISIS as a threat and thinks it is legitimate for the United States to conduct missile strikes. I disagree. Quit acting like it's some big damn charade. I've followed his speeches, his interviews, and his votes to know well enough where he stands. He is not a non-interventionist.

Political "stealth" strategies. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....won't get fooled again.

acptulsa
10-25-2014, 06:38 AM
You should learn to quit insulting Rand Paul's integrity and my intelligence.

He says what he means. He votes in alignment with what he says. It isn't some conspiracy that when the time is right he's suddenly going to unveil himself as a non-interventionist, constant veto-er.

He legitimately views ISIS as a threat and thinks it is legitimate for the United States to conduct missile strikes. I disagree. Quit acting like it's some big damn charade. I've followed his speeches, his interviews, and his votes to know well enough where he stands. He is not a non-interventionist.

Hmmm...

So, cutting off aid to Israel before (or without) cutting off aid to Israel's enemies (which adds up to a greater amount) is non-interventionalist? Really? Sounds like taking sides to me. Admittedly, the aid to Israel's enemies shouldn't be happening. But to say two things--related things--shouldn't be happening, and we will throw a situation which is in some kind of uneasy balance out of any semblance of balance if we end one of the related things without ending the other one simultaneously, but I will end one whenever I have a chance on principle without regard to that balance, is the kind of 'principle over pragmatism' that makes voters really, really nervous. As they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in both 2008 and 2012.

What's more, Rand Paul has promised that, much as he wants to end all foreign aid, he won't start with Israel. And since this is in line with the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this republic, I am pleased to see him keep this promise.

Not non-interventionalist. And if, just for the sake of argument, China was supporting Israel and Russia was supporting several of Israel's enemies, and we made China stop without doing anything about Russia, would that be non-interventionalist as well...?

Rand Paul's position of end all foreign aid, but don't start with Israel's, is the kind of pragmatic principle that his father never expressed, but which voters insist upon. Ron Paul knew there is a difference between being the contrarian one-of-435 Congressmen raging against the machine and being president, but somehow he never convinced voters that he knew that difference and he would change his style if elected president. Rand has a right to learn from that mistake, and Rand has a right to choose to fail to repeat that mistake--even if this knowingly trades the support of people like you for dozens or hundreds of times as many voters. I guess he figures you'd just have to get over it.

And you can. You've gotten over worse these last two administrations.

So, the resident (mod edit) say that someone who wants to take a moment to find (or build) a safe bridge to the other side of the bottomless chasm obviously doesn't really want to cross the chasm or he'd just jump and make us jump too. Goebbels would be so proud of that propaganda.

They gave him some rope and he didn't hang himself. How horrible.

philipped
10-25-2014, 07:42 AM
I'm kinda confused here...

Some people were looking for Rand to give a speech about this topic with all this spotlight and sound like a carbon copy of Ron STILL???

I honestly feel you guys, trust, but...I'm really not sweating his more interventionist positions due to the rarity of them, and the circumstances of the positions he has to formulate now. He literally would have to clean up the mess, or at least try, of the past 2 administrations. Taking it for just as it was, he's pitching his FP as totally different from what people THOUGHT which is the best he can do @ this point gearing up.

Uriah
10-25-2014, 08:06 AM
I think Rand should be stronger if we get attacked like...

"We should mind our own business, but if a country or organization attacks us first, we will respond by bombing and killing them, kill their families/friends and destroy their homes and living. Kill all of them."

I believe in a strong response if someone does try to do something or attack USA, but we should be neutral for the majority of the time. I believe if we go to war, we gotta win. War is about killing people until the people don't want to fight anymore. Not fucking nation building and worrying about casualties (which increases the time we are at war).

Let's say in 1 year, we don't care about civilian casaulties. We kill 100,000 innocent people to defeat/kill our enemy during that year, but we achieve victory. I think that is way better than being very careful, and maybe kill 1,000 civilians a year for the next 10 years (10,000 total). WHY? Would you want to live in constant fear for the next 10 years? Worrying about getting droned or airstriked. Worrying about "terrorists" setting road bombs meant for the invading force, but instead you or a love one get's killed by accident by the road bomb? I know we don't deliberately target civlians, but we shouldn't worry about them too much.

Living in fear for 1 year or Living in fear for 10 years? Your pick.

I do not believe killing innocent people is ever justified.

Brett85
10-25-2014, 08:24 AM
I do not believe killing innocent people is ever justified.

Then I guess you don't believe that war is ever justified, because there is always going to be innocent people killed during war.

Brett85
10-25-2014, 08:45 AM
If TPTB know he is playing the game, the media follows a script, and he can't separate himself from Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, or Ben Carson on foreign policy, he's not gaining many voters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/09/ted-cruz-i-dont-agree-with-rand-paul-on-foreign-policy/

Vanguard101
10-25-2014, 09:43 AM
I do not believe killing innocent people is ever justified.



Then I guess you don't believe that war is ever justified, because there is always going to be innocent people killed during war.
Did you really conclude this?

Peace&Freedom
10-25-2014, 09:54 AM
Then I guess you don't believe that war is ever justified, because there is always going to be innocent people killed during war.

Innocents are killed in war, but there are established rules that govern moral conduct of war. The Just War principles that have guided western civilization for 1600 years precisely define the protocol for justifiably entering into (and cleanly exiting from) military conflict. One key principle is not INTENTIONALLY or willfully targeting civilians. The other big one is not initiating or launching aggression in the first place. Both concepts (and the other ones as well) have been obliterated by the current Empire's standing policy of pre-emptive war, or permitting bomb attacks on any targets "of potential military significance" (obliterating the whole difference between civilian and military).

The debate is not over pacificism, it is over restoring ANY kind of moral or procedural restraints on military aggression. The US is now structurally committed to excusing away any and all military intervention, and ignoring any and all conventions that define the rules by which war will be waged.

Brett85
10-25-2014, 10:00 AM
Innocents are killed in war, but there are established rules that govern moral conduct of war. The Just War principles that have guided western civilization for 1600 years precisely define the protocol for justifiably entering into (and cleanly exiting from) military conflict. One key principle is not INTENTIONALLY or willfully targeting civilians. The other big one is not initiating or launching aggression in the first place. Both concepts (and the other ones as well) have been obliterated by the current Empire's standing policy of pre-emptive war, or permitting bomb attacks on any targets "of potential military significance" (obliterating the whole difference between civilian and military).

The debate is not over pacificism, it is over restoring ANY kind of moral or procedural restraints on military aggression. The US is now structurally committed to excusing away any and all military intervention, and ignoring any and all conventions that define the rules by which war will be waged.

I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems like the way that he should've framed his statement is, "I don't believe that intentionally targeting and killing innocent people overseas is ever justified." The way he said it made it sound like he would just be opposed to all war, since war always involves the deaths of innocent people.

Todd
10-25-2014, 10:17 AM
I read Fukuyama's book back in College and it very much influenced my international relations beliefs for many years. Looking back his thesis was completely false. The fact that Rand can speak in the language of I.R community and has a basis of understanding political science dynamics is one of the most important strengths he will have going into the foreign policy conversation. Fantastic!

Lucille
10-25-2014, 10:32 AM
heres's the vid. Lucille can you add it to your OP?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I1Vej9sbgQ

Done, thanks!

dillo
10-25-2014, 10:43 AM
Incoming Jennifer Rubin article

twomp
10-25-2014, 01:14 PM
Then I guess you don't believe that war is ever justified, because there is always going to be innocent people killed during war.

How about wars against a group that has never done anything to us?

jjdoyle
10-25-2014, 01:31 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/03/09/ted-cruz-i-dont-agree-with-rand-paul-on-foreign-policy/

What Ted Cruz said in this piece is nothing extreme. He used Ronald Raygun, and basically said the same rhetoric as Rand in this speech about America leading. So, perhaps now Rand is more like Ted Cruz on foreign policy?

Peace&Freedom
10-25-2014, 01:40 PM
I don't necessarily disagree, but it seems like the way that he should've framed his statement is, "I don't believe that intentionally targeting and killing innocent people overseas is ever justified." The way he said it made it sound like he would just be opposed to all war, since war always involves the deaths of innocent people.

Since consistent adherence to Just War principle leads to the moral conclusion that war is almost never justified, his shorthand version of opposing all war, on instinct or by default, is basically correct.

jmdrake
10-25-2014, 02:52 PM
I think Rand should be stronger if we get attacked like...

"We should mind our own business, but if a country or organization attacks us first, we will respond by bombing and killing them, kill their families/friends and destroy their homes and living. Kill all of them."

I believe in a strong response if someone does try to do something or attack USA, but we should be neutral for the majority of the time. I believe if we go to war, we gotta win. War is about killing people until the people don't want to fight anymore. Not fucking nation building and worrying about casualties (which increases the time we are at war).

Let's say in 1 year, we don't care about civilian casaulties. We kill 100,000 innocent people to defeat/kill our enemy during that year, but we achieve victory. I think that is way better than being very careful, and maybe kill 1,000 civilians a year for the next 10 years (10,000 total). WHY? Would you want to live in constant fear for the next 10 years? Worrying about getting droned or airstriked. Worrying about "terrorists" setting road bombs meant for the invading force, but instead you or a love one get's killed by accident by the road bomb? I know we don't deliberately target civlians, but we shouldn't worry about them too much.

Living in fear for 1 year or Living in fear for 10 years? Your pick.

If popular uprisings could be defeated by killing enough civilians than the Soviet Union should have won in Afghanistan. Hint. They didn't. Please watch this documentary and rethink your position.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiF_MpHcjd0

acptulsa
10-25-2014, 03:41 PM
What Ted Cruz said in this piece is nothing extreme. He used Ronald Raygun, and basically said the same rhetoric as Rand in this speech about America leading. So, perhaps now Rand is more like Ted Cruz on foreign policy?

You have time to nitpick Ted Cruz' own claim that his foreign policy opinions are not like Rand Paul's but you have no time to address the points I made above?

Well alrightey then...

Occam's Banana
10-25-2014, 03:45 PM
If popular uprisings could be defeated by killing enough civilians than the Soviet Union should have won in Afghanistan.

And the United States should have won in Vietnam. (I guess "we" just didn't kill enough "gooks" ...)

jjdoyle
10-25-2014, 04:28 PM
Hmmm...

So, cutting off aid to Israel before (or without) cutting off aid to Israel's enemies (which adds up to a greater amount) is non-interventionalist? Really? Sounds like taking sides to me. Admittedly, the aid to Israel's enemies shouldn't be happening. But to say two things--related things--shouldn't be happening, and we will throw a situation which is in some kind of uneasy balance out of any semblance of balance if we end one of the related things without ending the other one simultaneously, but I will end one whenever I have a chance on principle without regard to that balance, is the kind of 'principle over pragmatism' that makes voters really, really nervous. As they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in both 2008 and 2012.

What's more, Rand Paul has promised that, much as he wants to end all foreign aid, he won't start with Israel. And since this is in line with the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this republic, I am pleased to see him keep this promise.

Not non-interventionalist. And if, just for the sake of argument, China was supporting Israel and Russia was supporting several of Israel's enemies, and we made China stop without doing anything about Russia, would that be non-interventionalist as well...?

Rand Paul's position of end all foreign aid, but don't start with Israel's, is the kind of pragmatic principle that his father never expressed, but which voters insist upon. Ron Paul knew there is a difference between being the contrarian one-of-435 Congressmen raging against the machine and being president, but somehow he never convinced voters that he knew that difference and he would change his style if elected president. Rand has a right to learn from that mistake, and Rand has a right to choose to fail to repeat that mistake--even if this knowingly trades the support of people like you for dozens or hundreds of times as many voters. I guess he figures you'd just have to get over it.

And you can. You've gotten over worse these last two administrations.

So, the resident Rand haters say that someone who wants to take a moment to find (or build) a safe bridge to the other side of the bottomless chasm obviously doesn't really want to cross the chasm or he'd just jump and make us jump too. Goebbels would be so proud of that propaganda.

They gave him some rope and he didn't hang himself. How horrible.

Rand Paul doesn't have to start with Israel, he has to start with ALL foreign aid. Doesn't matter who it is for.

Rand Paul SHOULD be championing ending GOVERNMENT aid to Israel, because it makes US less safe, and MORE likely to be attacked in the future. Our foreign aid and blind-eye to Israel is ONE of the THREE reasons given for us being attacked on 9/11.

Israel is no ally of the U.S. as far as I can see, except in taking money from us.

I would say Rand should read the 9/11 Commission Report's 28 pages that are classified, to see what they say before pledging and voting for more foreign aid to Israel.

This isn't about hating Rand or hating Israel, this is about minimizing the chances of us being attacked again. If you, as a U.S. citizen, want to donate to Israel's government, charities, or volunteer time over in the country, you should be able to do so. But, my bankrupt government should not be spending one dime doing so.

And if Israel knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and didn't warn us, they should be cut off from foreign aid immediately:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo

Brett85
10-25-2014, 04:59 PM
What Ted Cruz said in this piece is nothing extreme. He used Ronald Raygun, and basically said the same rhetoric as Rand in this speech about America leading. So, perhaps now Rand is more like Ted Cruz on foreign policy?

So I guess Cruz is just confused and actually agrees with Rand on foreign policy even though he thinks he disagrees?

Brett85
10-25-2014, 05:02 PM
Rand Paul doesn't have to start with Israel, he has to start with ALL foreign aid. Doesn't matter who it is for.

Rand Paul SHOULD be championing ending GOVERNMENT aid to Israel, because it makes US less safe, and MORE likely to be attacked in the future. Our foreign aid and blind-eye to Israel is ONE of the THREE reasons given for us being attacked on 9/11.

Israel is no ally of the U.S. as far as I can see, except in taking money from us.

I would say Rand should read the 9/11 Commission Report's 28 pages that are classified, to see what they say before pledging and voting for more foreign aid to Israel.

This isn't about hating Rand or hating Israel, this is about minimizing the chances of us being attacked again. If you, as a U.S. citizen, want to donate to Israel's government, charities, or volunteer time over in the country, you should be able to do so. But, my bankrupt government should not be spending one dime doing so.

And if Israel knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and didn't warn us, they should be cut off from foreign aid immediately:

Why the obsession with Israel? We give foreign aid to a lot more countries than just Israel, but yet your obsession is with the foreign aid that we give to Israel. This is one reason why social conservatives and evangelicals are so skeptical of the liberty movement, because you have a lot of people who appear to take much more of an anti Israel point of view rather than a neutral point of view.

jjdoyle
10-25-2014, 05:10 PM
Why the obsession with Israel? We give foreign aid to a lot more countries than just Israel, but yet your obsession is with the foreign aid that we give to Israel. This is one reason why social conservatives and evangelicals are so skeptical of the liberty movement, because you have a lot of people who appear to take much more of an anti Israel point of view rather than a neutral point of view.

Obsession? Ask Rand that, not me. Rand voted for the foreign aid to Israel, not the other countries that I'm aware of.

Social conservatives and evangelicals are skeptical of the liberty movement, because of their ignorance. Not because of some anti Israel claim that you say. I said it in my post above, if YOU want to donate to Israel's government, charities that support efforts in the country, or go and volunteer time in the country, you should be able to do so. But my bankrupt government should not be giving one dime to another country, especially if that country perhaps knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and didn't warn us, as the video says.

This has nothing to do with being anti Israel, it has to do with being pro U.S. and doing what makes us safe here in the states.

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2014, 05:44 PM
Hmmm...

So, cutting off aid to Israel before (or without) cutting off aid to Israel's enemies (which adds up to a greater amount) is non-interventionalist?
Cutting off aid to everyone would be considered a non-interventionist position. People tell me all the time, ignore the rhetoric, ignore the rhetoric.... well, I suppose I'll somewhat oblige. His rhetoric is wishy washy stating that he favors eliminating foreign aid from every country. Then he turns and votes for more of it. Repeatedly.

Just playing the game, you'll insult the man with.



Really? Sounds like taking sides to me.
What are you talking about, "taking sides?" Where did I say I wasn't taking sides? What does that have to do with anything?

You are referring to me taking the side of the Arab world over Israel, yes? Implying that I support that "aid" (the aid to Arab countries)? Tsk. Tsk.



Admittedly, the aid to Israel's enemies shouldn't be happening.
Yes, not on any grounds that they are enemies of Israel though. I couldn't find myself giving a single fuck if they went The Wall annually, they shouldn't receive [stolen] money regardless. Israel's diplomatic stance with nations ought hold no bearing on anything. Why does it, and why do you pay lip service to it (even going so far as to accuse me in a seemingly negative (and totally irrelevant) way of "taking sides")?



But to say two things--related things--shouldn't be happening, and we will throw a situation which is in some kind of uneasy balance out of any semblance of balance if we end one of the related things without ending the other one simultaneously, but I will end one whenever I have a chance on principle without regard to that balance, is the kind of 'principle over pragmatism' that makes voters really, really nervous.
I believe you may have forgotten a portion of this sentence. I don't quite know what to make of it.

I would end foreign aid whenever possible as well. And to top it off, I wouldn't vote for any additional foreign aid. What a radical concept.


As they proved beyond a shadow of a doubt in both 2008 and 2012.
The people listen to the media.



What's more, Rand Paul has promised that, much as he wants to end all foreign aid, he won't start with Israel.
He wouldn't have started with Israel (and that's not quite what he said. He said that the enemies of America ought have their foreign aid ended first while acknowledging that all foreign aid should be ended). There is a difference (and one that if you wish to even presume to defend Rand Paul's position, you'd be wise to note).

For instance, Egypt (number one), Pakistan (number two), Libya (number three)........ Israel (number four)? But that's not what he's talking about and that's not what he said.

All I have to do is look at what he said, look at how he votes, and then become made out to be the bad guy by my saying that they are by and large in line. It isn't plain rhetoric. He says what he means and he votes accordingly. I disagree with some of what he says (in particular positions that prove in point that he is not a non-interventionist, as I held out hope that he would be). He will rely on a team of foreign policy advisers, all of whom probably should be in a prison cell (what's his AG going to start impeachment proceedings against countless heads of these ran amok agencies?). He would continue much of the intervention. The troops would not be coming home in large scale, the war games would not cease, the bombing campaigns for this or that would not end. Sure, he'd require Congressional authorization, which I suppose is some sort of improvement, but regardless Congress would oblige, the people dumbed down by various media circuses and the show would go on.

I'm sorry to rain on parades... or be the bad guy... but it is what it is. His foreign policy is flawed. Perhaps over the years you may have realized that foreign policy is a big issue to me? I find it outrageous that people listen to that speech and gain hope. I could barely make it through reading it let alone actually endorsing it or sending it to someone who isn't a Reaganite. That's the target crowd, I understand. Regardless, Rand Paul means what he says when he says it.



And since this is in line with the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this republic, I am pleased to see him keep this promise.
What an unfunny joke.



Not non-interventionalist. And if, just for the sake of argument, China was supporting Israel and Russia was supporting several of Israel's enemies, and we made China stop without doing anything about Russia, would that be non-interventionalist as well...?
You keep using that 'word' and I truly think you do not know what it means.

This is just beyond me.

You are asking that if 'we' forced the Chinese to not give aid to Israel without forcing Russia to not give aid to Israel's enemies.... if that would be a non-interventionist position?

What the hell do I care who gives aid to Israel for so long as I'm not? And furthermore, what the hell do I care who gives aid to Israel's enemies so long as I'm not?

Come on, man. This is just ridiculous.



Rand Paul's position of end all foreign aid, but don't start with Israel's, is the kind of pragmatic principle that his father never expressed, but which voters insist upon. Ron Paul knew there is a difference between being the contrarian one-of-435 Congressmen raging against the machine and being president, but somehow he never convinced voters that he knew that difference and he would change his style if elected president. Rand has a right to learn from that mistake, and Rand has a right to choose to fail to repeat that mistake--even if this knowingly trades the support of people like you for dozens or hundreds of times as many voters. I guess he figures you'd just have to get over it.
You are so delusional it is not even funny. Trying times; I understand.

Rand Paul will veto every piece of unconstitutional legislation that comes to his office? Give me a break. There's always reelection and regardless they'd impeach his ass before sundown. Not to mention a few might become annoyed with him for such a move.



And you can. You've gotten over worse these last two administrations.
Yawn.



So, the resident Rand haters say that someone who wants to take a moment to find (or build) a safe bridge to the other side of the bottomless chasm obviously doesn't really want to cross the chasm or he'd just jump and make us jump too.
Resident Rand haters, huh? Have you read his books? I have probably some hundred hours of Rand Paul speeches on this computer. Not that I've watched them all, though... though I've probably watched more than a hundred hours of Rand Paul speaking.



Goebbels would be so proud of that propaganda.
Fuck you. You're a punk for that comment.



They gave him some rope and he didn't hang himself. How horrible.
And the propagandists who control the media will be taken as fools once Rand Paul is in control (somewhat of the White House, that is).

Crashland
10-25-2014, 05:57 PM
Rand's foreign policy is moderate. He's not going to satisfy the most purist non-interventionists like his father did. Stop expecting him to.

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2014, 06:15 PM
Rand's foreign policy is moderate. He's not going to satisfy the most purist non-interventionists like his father did. Stop expecting him to.
Is this directed at me?

If it is, I don't consider myself a "purist" though I can't say I'd much compromise on certain issues (I take morality to a certain point and live within that code).

More importantly, I do not expect him to. I know how he'll vote. I know what he says. I am not surprised that this address sounded as it did. The people that are annoying me are those who claim that he is a non-interventionist, or more specifically those that claim he does not mean what he says.

It's like Dennis Kucinich for me. I respect the man personally even though I don't agree with a very important portion of his views. I respect Rand Paul personally even though I don't agree with a very important portion of his views.

But let these people not come out and claim that their stated views are different than their stated views or try to concoct fantasies that their stated views will drastically and immediately change at some point in time. Sure, Rand Paul may come around on foreign policy at a later point. Dennis Kucinich might come around on economic issues.

Don't insult my intelligence and their character by stating that things are what they are not or implying, especially in Rand Paul's case, that he is dishonest or simply a showman. He's written books, given speeches, written essays, given interviews, and voted and they are all by and large in line from best I can see.

Brett85
10-25-2014, 07:46 PM
I said it in my post above, if YOU want to donate to Israel's government, charities that support efforts in the country, or go and volunteer time in the country, you should be able to do so. But my bankrupt government should not be giving one dime to another country, especially if that country perhaps knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and didn't warn us, as the video says.

I support ending all foreign aid, but like Rand, I don't think it makes sense to specifically target Israel for cuts in foreign aid.

Matt Collins
10-25-2014, 08:14 PM
He is not a non-interventionist.Please tell me which votes he has cast in order to intervene militarily abroad? :confused: :rolleyes:

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2014, 08:58 PM
Please tell me which votes he has cast in order to intervene militarily abroad? :confused: :rolleyes:
How about Senate Amendment 3232?


Alphabetical by Senator Name

Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Not Voting
Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brown (R-MA), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coats (R-IN), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Not Voting
Heller (R-NV), Not Voting
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Not Voting
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Not Voting

But you'll tell me that sanctions abroad are not intervening militarily I'm sure (probably citing international lawyers). A game of semantics, no doubt, when what I am talking about is non-interventionism, but I digress.

Same as you'll tell me that approving aid to a country which is somewhat responsible for a multiple trillion dollar couple of wars (that is to say that Israeli aid incites a certain region to attack this country leading us into a war), has nothing at all to do with militarily intervening abroad, until it does.

Lest I forget Rand Paul's position on the war in Afghanistan.

Rand Paul says he supports limited strikes in Iraq... I'll take his word for it (I have no reason not to). If the text was limiting in its scope and clearly defined, Rand Paul would certainly vote for it.

I now expect to be offered a pragmatic outlook or even a fantasy.

Text of the amendment:


(2) FACILITATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS.--Except as provided in this section, the President shall prohibit the opening, and

[Page: S7244] GPO's PDF
prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the President determines knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, conducts or facilitates a significant financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of goods or services described in paragraph (3).
(3) GOODS AND SERVICES DESCRIBED.--Goods or services described in this paragraph are goods or services used in connection with the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of Iran, including the National Iranian Oil Company, the National Iranian Tanker Company, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines.

(4) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF IRAN SANCTIONS ACT OF 1996.--The following provisions of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) shall apply with respect to the imposition of sanctions under paragraph (1) to the same extent that such provisions apply with respect to the imposition of sanctions under section 5(a) of that Act:

(A) Subsections (c), (d), and (f) of section 5 (except for paragraphs (3) and (4)(C) of such subsection (f)).

(B) Sections 8, 11, and 12.

(e) Humanitarian Exception.--The President may not impose sanctions under this section with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran or for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Iran.

(f) Applicability of Sanctions to Petroleum and Petroleum Products.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section shall apply with respect to the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran only if, at the time of the purchase, a determination of the President under section 1245(d)(4)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(B)) that the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than Iran is sufficient to permit purchasers of petroleum and petroleum products from Iran to reduce significantly their purchases from Iran is in effect.

(2) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES.--

(A) EXPORTATION.--This section shall not apply with respect to the exportation of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran to a country to which the exception under section 1245(d)(4)(D)(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(D)(i)) applies at the time of the exportation of the petroleum or petroleum products.

(B) FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.--

(i) IN GENERAL.--This section shall not apply with respect to a financial transaction described in clause (ii) conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution if, at the time of the transaction, the exception under section 1245(d)(4)(D)(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(D)(i)) applies to the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(ii) FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS DESCRIBED.--A financial transaction conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution is described in this clause if--

(I) the financial transaction is for the purchase of purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran;

(II) the financial transaction is only for trade in goods or services--

(aa) not otherwise subject to sanctions under the law of the United States; and

(bb) between the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution and Iran; and

(III) any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(g) Applicability of Sanctions to Natural Gas.--

(1) SALE, SUPPLY, OR TRANSFER.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), this section shall not apply to the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of natural gas.

(2) FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS.--This section shall apply to a foreign financial institution that conducts or facilitates a financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of natural gas unless--

(A) the financial transaction is only for trade in goods or services--

(i) not otherwise subject to sanctions under the law of the United States; and

(ii) between the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution and Iran; and

(B) any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(h) Waiver.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The President may waive the imposition of sanctions under this section for a period of not more than 120 days, and may renew that waiver for additional periods of not more than 120 days, if the President--

(A) determines that such a waiver is vital to the national security of the United States; and

(B) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report providing a justification for the waiver.

(2) FORM OF REPORT.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)(B) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

SEC. 1255. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE, SUPPLY, OR TRANSFER OF CERTAIN MATERIALS TO OR FROM IRAN.

(a) Sale, Supply, or Transfer of Certain Materials.--The President shall impose 5 or more of the sanctions described in section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) with respect to a person if the President determines that the person knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, sells, supplies, or transfers, directly or indirectly, to or from Iran--

(1) a precious metal;

(2) a material described in subsection (c) determined pursuant to subsection (d)(1) to be used by Iran as described in that subsection;

(3) any other material described in subsection (c) if--

(A) the material is--

(i) to be used in connection with the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of Iran or any sector of the economy of Iran controlled directly or indirectly by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(ii) sold, supplied, or transferred to or from an Iranian person included on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury; or

(iii) relevant to the nuclear, military, or ballistic missile programs of Iran; or

(B) the material is resold, retransferred, or otherwise supplied--

(i) to an end-user in a sector described in clause (i) of subparagraph (A);

(ii) to a person described in clause (ii) of that subparagraph; or

(iii) for a program described in clause (iii) of that subparagraph.

(b) Facilitation of Certain Transactions.--The President shall prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the President determines knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, conducts or facilitates a significant financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of materials the sale, supply, or transfer of which would subject a person to sanctions under subsection (a).

(c) Materials Described.--Materials described in this subsection are graphite, raw or semi-finished metals such as aluminum and steel, coal, and software for integrating industrial processes.

(d) Determination With Respect to Use of Materials.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and publish in the Federal Register a report that contains the determination of the President with respect to--

(1) whether Iran is--

(A) using any of the materials described in subsection (c) as a medium for barter, swap, or any other exchange or transaction; or

(B) listing any of such materials as assets of the Government of Iran for purposes of the national balance sheet of Iran;

(2) which sectors of the economy of Iran are controlled directly or indirectly by Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps; and

(3) which of the materials described in subsection (c) are relevant to the nuclear, military, or ballistic missile programs of Iran.

(e) Exception for Persons Exercising Due Diligence.--The President may not impose sanctions under subsection (a) or (b) with respect to a person if the President determines that the person has exercised due diligence in establishing and enforcing official policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that the person does not sell, supply, or transfer to or from Iran materials the sale, supply, or transfer of which would subject a person to sanctions under subsection (a) or conduct or facilitate a financial transaction for such a sale, supply, or transfer.

(f) Waiver.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The President may waive the imposition of sanctions under this section for a period of not more than 120 days, and may renew that waiver for additional periods of not more than 120 days, if the President--

(A) determines that such a waiver is vital to the national security of the United States; and

(B) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report providing a justification for the waiver.

(2) FORM OF REPORT.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)(B) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

(g) National Balance Sheet of Iran Defined.--For purposes of this section, the term ``national balance sheet of Iran'' refers to the ratio of the assets of the Government of Iran to the liabilities of that Government.

SEC. 1256. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVISION OF UNDERWRITING SERVICES OR INSURANCE OR REINSURANCE FOR ACTIVITIES OR PERSONS WITH RESPECT TO WHICH SANCTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the President shall impose 5 or more of the sanctions described in section

[Page: S7245] GPO's PDF
6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) with respect to a person if the President determines that the person knowingly, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, provides underwriting services or insurance or reinsurance--
(1) for any activity with respect to Iran for which sanctions have been imposed under this subtitle, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.), the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.), the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Public Law 106-178; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note), or any other provision of law relating to the imposition of sanctions with respect to Iran;

(2) to or for any person--

(A) with respect to, or for the benefit of any activity in the energy, shipping, or shipbuilding sectors of Iran for which sanctions are imposed under this subtitle;

(B) for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of materials described in section 1255(c); or

(C) designated for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) in connection with--

(i) Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction; or

(ii) Iran's support for international terrorism; or

(3) to or for any Iranian person included on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury (other than an Iranian financial institution described in subsection (b)).

(b) Iranian Financial Institutions Described.--An Iranian financial institution described in this subsection is an Iranian financial institution that has not been designated for the imposition of sanctions in connection with--

(1) Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction;

(2) Iran's support for international terrorism; or

(3) Iran's abuses of human rights.

(c) Humanitarian Exception.--The President may not impose sanctions under subsection (a) for the provision of underwriting services or insurance or reinsurance for a transaction for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran or for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Iran.

(d) Exception for Underwriters and Insurance Providers Exercising Due Diligence.--The President may not impose sanctions under paragraph (1) or (3) or subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) with respect to a person that provides underwriting services or insurance or reinsurance if the President determines that the person has exercised due diligence in establishing and enforcing official policies, procedures, and controls to ensure that the person does not underwrite or enter into a contract to provide insurance or reinsurance for an activity described in paragraph (1) of that subsection or to or for any person described in paragraph (3) or subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) of that subsection.

(e) Waiver.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The President may waive the imposition of sanctions under subsection (a) for a period of not more than 120 days, and may renew that waiver for additional periods of not more than 120 days, if the President--

(A) determines that such a waiver is vital to the national security of the United States; and

(B) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report providing a justification for the waiver.

(2) FORM OF REPORT.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)(B) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

(f) Application of Certain Provisions of Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.--The following provisions of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) shall apply with respect to the imposition of sanctions under subsection (a) to the same extent that such provisions apply with respect to the imposition of sanctions under section 5(a) of that Act:

(1) Subsections (c), (d), and (f) of section 5 (except for paragraphs (3) and (4)(C) of such subsection (f)).

(2) Sections 8, 11, and 12.

SEC. 1257. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS THAT FACILITATE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS ON BEHALF OF SPECIALLY DESIGNATED NATIONALS.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in this section, the President shall prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the President determines has, on or after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, knowingly facilitated a significant financial transaction on behalf of any Iranian person included on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury (other than an Iranian financial institution described in subsection (b)).

(b) Iranian Financial Institutions Described.--An Iranian financial institution described in this subsection is an Iranian financial institution that has not been designated for the imposition of sanctions in connection with--

(1) Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction;

(2) Iran's support for international terrorism; or

(3) Iran's abuses of human rights.

(c) Humanitarian Exception.--The President may not impose sanctions under subsection (a) with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the sale of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran or for the provision of humanitarian assistance to the people of Iran.

(d) Applicability of Sanctions to Petroleum and Petroleum Products.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a financial transaction for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran only if, at the time of the transaction, a determination of the President under section 1245(d)(4)(B) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(B)) that the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than Iran is sufficient to permit purchasers of petroleum and petroleum products from Iran to reduce significantly their purchases from Iran is in effect.

(2) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to a financial transaction described in subparagraph (B) conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution for if, at the time of the transaction, the exception under section 1245(d)(4)(D)(i) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (22 U.S.C. 8513a(d)(4)(D)(i)) applies to the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(B) FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS DESCRIBED.--A financial transaction conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution is described in this subparagraph if--

(i) the financial transaction is for the purchase of purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran;

(ii) the financial transaction is only for trade in goods or services--

(I) not otherwise subject to sanctions under the law of the United States; and

(II) between the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution and Iran; and

(iii) any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(e) Applicability of Sanctions to Natural Gas.--Subsection (a) shall apply to a foreign financial institution that conducts or facilitates a financial transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of natural gas unless--

(1) the financial transaction is only for trade in goods or services--

(A) not otherwise subject to sanctions under the law of the United States; and

(B) between the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution and Iran; and

(2) any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(f) Waiver.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The President may waive the imposition of sanctions under subsection (a) for a period of not more than 120 days, and may renew that waiver for additional periods of not more than 120 days, if the President--

(A) determines that such a waiver is vital to the national security of the United States; and

(B) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report providing a justification for the waiver.

(2) FORM OF REPORT.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)(B) shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

SEC. 1258. INCLUSION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN BROADCASTING ON THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting has contributed to the infringement of individuals' human rights by broadcasting forced televised confession and show trials.

(2) In March 2012, the European Council imposed sanctions on the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, Ezzatollah Zargami, for broadcasting forced confessions of detainees and a series of ``show trials'' in August 2009 and December 2011 that constituted a clear violation of international law with respect to the right to a fair trial and due process.

(b) Inclusion of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting on the List of Human Rights Abusers.--The President shall include the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, Ezzatollah Zargami, in the first update to the list of persons complicit in, or responsible for ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of serious human rights abuses against citizens of Iran or their family members submitted under section 105 o

Brett85
10-25-2014, 09:30 PM
...

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2014, 09:52 PM
So you're going to criticize Rand for supporting a war that Ron voted for, a war that we got involved in as a result of an attack on our soil? I don't think anyone here really takes you seriously at all.
You are the joke amongst jokesters and you're questioning if anyone takes me seriously?

You fail quite considerably in most every thing you mention. You misinterpret and deliberately misrepresent every position in any 'debate' you have held. You recycle tired cliches as if they are an argument and offer nothing with regards to substance. I mean, quite frankly, Matt Collins could have offered me that and I'd be less offended. International lawyers are better sources than you've ever offered. This is just absurd.

You wouldn't get such a response if I had not already responded to you multiple times with some regard to this matter (and if you didn't purposely misrepresent pretty much every single thing you've responded to of mine, as well as your usual nonsense... I could explain a sentence word for word and beg you not to take this to mean that, and what do you do?).

Ron Paul has apologized for, clarified that vote, and accepted responsibility for it... as awful as it was. Rand Paul has defended that vote, as awful as it was. There is a difference.

Brett85
10-25-2014, 09:57 PM
...

kcchiefs6465
10-25-2014, 10:09 PM
Again, you are an absolute joke. No one in their right mind is going to argue that we should be completely pacifist after we get attacked and 3,000 of our people get slaughtered, that we don't have the right to self defense. You are trolling Rand's sub forum and need to leave. You're not a supporter of Rand and not someone who is even in his right mind, from what I can see.
And of the thousands of words I've typed to you, and probably dozen or two dozen books I've recommend, have you read any of them? A page of them?

People ask why I am pessimistic. You are case in point.

I don't think you are a shill, I don't think you are malevolent.

Regardless, you wouldn't remember the name of a title if it flew across the room and smacked you in the face.

And thus fails democracy.

You don't have to demand I leave... I don't much care for these parts anymore regardless.

Completely pacifist...? -neg for that.

Brett85
10-25-2014, 10:16 PM
And of the thousands of words I've typed to you, and probably dozen or two dozen books I've recommend, have you read any of them? A page of them?

People ask why I am pessimistic. You are case in point.

I don't think you are a shill, I don't think you are malevolent.

Regardless, you wouldn't remember the name of a title if it flew across the room and smacked you in the face.

And thus fails democracy.

You don't have to demand I leave... I don't much care for these parts anymore regardless.

Completely pacifist...? -neg for that.

Oh well. Go Royals. ;)

And Chiefs. We can at least agree on that.

acptulsa
10-26-2014, 08:23 AM
Rand Paul doesn't have to start with Israel, he has to start with ALL foreign aid. Doesn't matter who it is for.

Well, you don't want to discuss this in a rational way at all. You just want to stir up the libertarians to abandon Rand Paul or pressure us to pressure him to do something stupid. You bitched at his father for not doing what it takes to win and now you're bitching about the son doing what it takes to win. You've moved from pragmatist to purist just so you can continue bitching uninterrupted.

Here, have your negrep back. With interest.


You are referring to me taking the side of the Arab world over Israel, yes? Implying that I support that "aid" (the aid to Arab countries)? Tsk. Tsk.

No, but I'll say outright that, having not a leg to stand on, you're putting words in my mouth. Build all the straw men you want, but don't hang my name on any of them.


I would end foreign aid whenever possible as well. And to top it off, I wouldn't vote for any additional foreign aid. What a radical concept.

Why, yes, son, it is a radical concept, at least everywhere but here. Are you so dense that you don't see that the Paul one-two punch consisted of Ron Paul introducing a bunch of concepts that worked up until fifty years ago, but have been gone so long people forgot all about them, and Rand Paul not shoving people a more sensible direction but trying to lead them a more sensible direction? You don't need to appeal to people to shove them, but you do to lead them.


This is just beyond me.

Sorry to go over your head.

Not that the psychology of the herd isn't beyond me, too. But though it's hard to understand, it isn't that hard to predict, or to cater to. And I'm glad one of our candidates has enough sense to cater to the voters. Beats losing all the time.


Fuck you. You're a punk for that comment.

Yawn.

jmdrake
10-26-2014, 09:05 AM
Saying that there's no difference between Rand and Cruz, Huckabee, and Carson on foreign policy is simply ridiculous. You don't see the neocons criticizing those guys the way they do Rand. The only Republican who is a threat to them is Rand. I already pointed out how Rand's foreign policy is quite a bit different from theirs, but whatever.

Let's see. Ben Carson has spoken out against both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's concerned about what Russia is doing but doesn't seem interested in doing anything beyond sanctions. That's different from Rand Paul's foreign policy how exactly? Note that I don't think Carson is an interventionist either. Rand catches hell from the neocons because of his father. Ted Cruz can get away with saying stuff that McCain et al would excoriate Rand Paul over. For instance Ted Cruz said the problem with Iraq is that we stayed too long. Imagine McCain's reaction if Paul said that.

jmdrake
10-26-2014, 09:14 AM
You are the joke amongst jokesters and you're questioning if anyone takes me seriously?

You fail quite considerably in most every thing you mention. You misinterpret and deliberately misrepresent every position in any 'debate' you have held. You recycle tired cliches as if they are an argument and offer nothing with regards to substance. I mean, quite frankly, Matt Collins could have offered me that and I'd be less offended. International lawyers are better sources than you've ever offered. This is just absurd.

You wouldn't get such a response if I had not already responded to you multiple times with some regard to this matter (and if you didn't purposely misrepresent pretty much every single thing you've responded to of mine, as well as your usual nonsense... I could explain a sentence word for word and beg you not to take this to mean that, and what do you do?).

Ron Paul has apologized for, clarified that vote, and accepted responsibility for it... as awful as it was. Rand Paul has defended that vote, as awful as it was. There is a difference.

Ron Paul never apologized for the idea that going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was a noble thing to do. Rather he expressed regret that we didn't really go after Al Qaeda and instead started nation building.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=9672
We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug production and corruption have increased. We close our eyes to it because the reasons we're in Colombia and Afghanistan are denied.

Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.

Peace&Freedom
10-26-2014, 10:06 AM
Well, you don't want to discuss this in a rational way at all. You just want to stir up the libertarians to abandon Rand Paul or pressure us to pressure him to do something stupid. You bitched at his father for not doing what it takes to win and now you're bitching about the son doing what it takes to win. You've moved from pragmatist to purist just so you can continue bitching uninterrupted.


In partial defense of both people, what jjdoyle's critique is focused on is neither Ron's purity nor Rand's pragmatism, but Paul Inc.'s dishonesty. "Can we trust the same campaign apparatus that has bungled things twice, or was not out to win at all, and cut a secret deal with Romney last time?," is the elephant in the room he keeps pointing to. Truth be told, that is worth complaining about.



No, but I'll say outright that, having not a leg to stand on, you're putting words in my mouth. Build all the straw men you want, but don't hang my name on any of them.

Why, yes, son, it is a radical concept, at least everywhere but here. Are you so dense that you don't see that the Paul one-two punch consisted of Ron Paul introducing a bunch of concepts that worked up until fifty years ago, but have been gone so long people forgot all about them, and Rand Paul not shoving people a more sensible direction but trying to lead them a more sensible direction? You don't need to appeal to people to shove them, but you do to lead them.

We all HOPE Rand is just finessing foreign policy issues to get elected and (on balance) deliver a non-interventionist change in direction, but kcchiefs pointed out both substance and language from several bills Rand voted for that suggests otherwise, and wonders why more people aren't concerned. How do you lead people in the right direction, when they are walking in the opposite direction? How do you lead them in the path, when you seem to be walking with them the wrong way?

kcchiefs6465
10-26-2014, 10:42 AM
Ron Paul never apologized for the idea that going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was a noble thing to do. Rather he expressed regret that we didn't really go after Al Qaeda and instead started nation building.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=9672
We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug production and corruption have increased. We close our eyes to it because the reasons we're in Colombia and Afghanistan are denied.

Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation merely serves as a recruiting device for al-Qaeda, which has promised retaliation for our presence in their country. We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets. The net result of our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been to miss capturing bin Laden, assist al-Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug production, lose hundreds of American lives, and allow spending billions of American taxpayer dollars with no end in sight.
Ron Paul has said that knowing now what he does, he would have voted against it.

That's somewhat doesn't cut much as the text of the AUMF was clearly vague and knowing what he did, he should have known it would be abused. It was a bad vote. Much as Rand Paul's votes for sanctions are, his vote for the further subsidization of Israel (including the building of a joint intelligence operation, cyber warfare provisions etc.).

Ron Paul doesn't philosophically beat around the bush, offer wishy washy stances on the matter, and in general support a certain level of intervention. Rand Paul does. Anyone who thinks that he would not vote for airstrikes if the text was limited and clearly defined (when he has explicitly stated he would) is drinking some particularly strong Kool Aid. And anyone who thinks that I would support such a stance in text or spirit, or promote such a stance, clearly has not been around here long enough.

People's issues with Rand Paul's foreign policy are legitimate. I'd much prefer not to have my intelligence insulted or my concerns belittled or even being called a shill for calling Rand Paul out on his bad stances. Who knows, maybe one day he'll change his position? Ron Paul was rather 'hawkish' during the Cold War era, now he is one of the loudest proponents for non-interventionism. Just to state the obvious, it does not make me a "Rand hater" to disagree with a few of his votes or his overall foreign policy, for that matter. He has done much good and is the best Senator in US history.

Matt Collins
10-26-2014, 11:03 AM
Ron Paul doesn't philosophically beat around the bush, offer wishy washy stances on the matter, and in general support a certain level of intervention. And thus Ron was incapable of winning the nomination / Presidency.

Peace&Freedom
10-26-2014, 11:11 AM
And thus Ron was incapable of winning the nomination / Presidency.

In 18 months, say by March 2016, we will see if Rand's pragmatic finesse approach works any better, or not. If it's NOT, the movement will have to make a choice going forward about taking the beat around the bush approach, or go back to supporting going with open principle, as per Ron.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-26-2014, 11:15 AM
So you're going to criticize Rand for supporting a war that Ron voted for, a war that we got involved in as a result of an attack on our soil? I don't think anyone here really takes you seriously at all.

Says the guy who bought into the ISIS propaganda hook, line, & sinker.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-26-2014, 11:18 AM
Again, you are an absolute joke. No one in their right mind is going to argue that we should be completely pacifist after we get attacked and 3,000 of our people get slaughtered, that we don't have the right to self defense. You are trolling Rand's sub forum and need to leave. You're not a supporter of Rand and are simply wasting everyone's time by posting here. Go away.

Really? Because unlike Ron Paul, Barbara Lee had it right from the beginning. And guess what, she managed to win re-election after her "crazy" lone vote against AUMF.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh_sxilhyV0

NIU Students for Liberty
10-26-2014, 11:23 AM
And thus Ron was incapable of winning the nomination / Presidency.

And Rand's approach will be victorious? As someone else pointed out earlier, Rand's "going along to get along" approach on foreign policy isn't doing much to separate him from the rest of the Republican pack, aside from Christie or Bush (if they were to run).

supermario21
10-26-2014, 11:38 AM
And Barbara Lee got death threats and needed extra security after that. I doubt Ron would have had anywhere near the success he had in 08 and 12 (and thus, sparking the movement) if he had voted no like Rep. Lee...

Brett85
10-26-2014, 12:26 PM
Says the guy who bought into the ISIS propaganda hook, line, & sinker.

I do happen to view them as a threat, unlike many here. But I still understand that they're only a threat because of past U.S policies in the region, such as destabilizing Iraq as a result of our invasion, training and funding ISIS in Syria, and toppling Gaddafi which led to radical extremists taking over Libya. So although I do agree with Rand that ISIS is a threat and that the air strikes against them were necessary, I understand that ISIS rose to power because of too much intervention overseas, not too little. The neocons claim that ISIS rose to power because we didn't have enough intervention overseas.

Brett85
10-26-2014, 12:28 PM
KCChiefs, I have to apologize to you for what I said about you last night. Even though you're sometimes not exactly civil to me, as a Christian I'm commanded to love those I don't get along with very well. So I apologize for the personal attacks and will delete my comments.

Vanguard101
10-26-2014, 12:28 PM
You guys really need to stop comparing Ron to Rand. Ron is borderline supremely overrated.


Really? Because unlike Ron Paul, Barbara Lee had it right from the beginning. And guess what, she managed to win re-election after her "crazy" lone vote against AUMF.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh_sxilhyV0

Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

jjdoyle
10-26-2014, 12:34 PM
Your negative rep said:
http://i.imgur.com/4fDNDRK.jpg?1

Yes, the following video you apparently skipped and/or didn't comprehend, addresses Israel's popularity. Since most Americans don't even know about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo


You have time to nitpick Ted Cruz' own claim that his foreign policy opinions are not like Rand Paul's but you have no time to address the points I made above?

Well alrightey then...

#1, your response you whined about me not responding at was full of stupid points, and directed at another user, not me. But, after I saw you whine about your lack of attention from me on it, I addressed it. You clearly showed in your response to my actual response, you didn't even read, or comprehend, it and the video included with it.

Here were some of your stupid points you apparently wanted addressed:

And since this is in line with the wishes of the majority of the citizens of this republic, I am pleased to see him keep this promise.

I haven't seen a poll showing the majority of U.S. citizens support foreign aid to Israel, maybe you can provide one? I did search, but didn't find one reflecting your claim here.
Just because a majority want something, doesn't mean it's the right thing, as history should show us.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.", Mark Twain.
“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.”, Leo Tolstoy.
“In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.”, Mahatma Gandhi.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/majority

I found a poll mentioned showing that 81% polled in it supported foreign aid for reducing hunger and extreme poverty, but nothing about Israel or military foreign aid specifically.

And again, if Israel knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and didn't warn us, as the FOX NEWS video says, Israel should not be getting foreign aid.


Rand Paul's position of end all foreign aid, but don't start with Israel's, is the kind of pragmatic principle that his father never expressed, but which voters insist upon.

You are incorrect on Ron not taking or expressing a pragmatic principle. Going for an audit of the Federal Reserve first, though ending it would be the goal. Ron Paul didn't like Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, but he introduced a budget in 2012's race to keep those in place while cutting in other areas.


http://youtu.be/frDBVaLJ8ow?t=53s


but somehow he never convinced voters that he knew that difference and he would change his style if elected president. Rand has a right to learn from that mistake, and Rand has a right to choose to fail to repeat that mistake--even if this knowingly trades the support of people like you for dozens or hundreds of times as many voters. I guess he figures you'd just have to get over it.

I was one of many that said Ron Paul could have used a speech coach, to simply help with talking points. He had the best congressional record to run on as a Republican ever, and his presidential campaigns didn't really help deliver that message and record to the voters in better ways. Yes, Ron Paul 2012 ran some great ATTACK ads against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum helping Mitt Romney win the nomination, but it failed to address the ONE BIG AREA holding GOP voters back from Ron Paul, and that was foreign policy.

It's not that Ron didn't have the record for it, it was (and is) simply messaging it so the braindead GOP voters HEAR the words they UNDERSTAND. Repeatedly.


So, the resident Rand haters...

I don't know any resident Rand haters, but maybe you can go talk to them. But this was your biggest STUPID line of your post.

I thought that Rand was supposed to be the better communicator, and that he would be championing constitutional, conservative, foreign policy positions. Instead of taking his father's constitutional conservative record and running with it, he is now moving more towards the positions of Ted Cruz, John McCain, and others in certain areas of foreign policy. Sanctions. Supporting airstrikes on ISIS. Foreign aid to a country that apparently knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, and didn't warn us.

I think Rand needs to get a speech coach to help him tailor talking points to the GOP braindead base. I listen to most of his interviews and videos, and he is missing them in very key areas. He has some talking points, and he might be saving others for the race, but I don't see it from many things and now votes.

I understand 100% HOW Rand is going to get attacked in the 2016 race, assuming he runs, and I have shared it with a few around here. And I understand that's why he is taking certain positions now, but in doing so, he's becoming more like them with less differences between them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpWc_suPWo

And, I don't care if you have a 7 point rep, or a 100 point rep. It won't deter me from seeking truth, and promoting better ways. I can't help it that you posted something stupid, and then whined I didn't address it, because I was talking about another point with another member.

jmdrake
10-26-2014, 01:20 PM
Ron Paul has said that knowing now what he does, he would have voted against it.

Right. Because we didn't actually do what he voted for us to do which was to go in and get Osama Bin Laden. OBL was allowed to escape through Tora Bora into Pakistan because the Bush administration denied requests by CIA on the ground to drop troops behind him to cut off his escape. Then after OBL was allowed to leave we turned the invasion into an occupation and a nation building crusade. That's not what Ron Paul was voting for. Had the mission focused solely on getting OBL, and had it ended immediately after it was clear OBL was no longer in the country, Ron Paul may not have regretted his vote. Come on. Compare apples to apples.



That's somewhat doesn't cut much as the text of the AUMF was clearly vague and knowing what he did, he should have known it would be abused. It was a bad vote. Much as Rand Paul's votes for sanctions are, his vote for the further subsidization of Israel (including the building of a joint intelligence operation, cyber warfare provisions etc.).


Well if ^that is your argument then Rand is currently better than Ron on this issue as Rand hasn't voted to give authorization to bomb ISIS. He's just stated he's in favor of bombing ISIS. Ron was in favor of attacking Al Qaeda. He doesn't regret that Al Qaeda was attacked. He regrets that Al Qaeda wasn't focused on as promised and that the campaign became one of nation building.



Ron Paul doesn't philosophically beat around the bush, offer wishy washy stances on the matter, and in general support a certain level of intervention. Rand Paul does. Anyone who thinks that he would not vote for airstrikes if the text was limited and clearly defined (when he has explicitly stated he would) is drinking some particularly strong Kool Aid. And anyone who thinks that I would support such a stance in text or spirit, or promote such a stance, clearly has not been around here long enough.


And Ron, by your own admission, voted for attacks against Al Qaeda that weren't limited and clearly defined. Make no bones about it. ISIS is Al CIAda re-branded. If it was okay to have "limited well defined" strikes against Al Qaeda in 2002, why is it wrong for that now? Granted I'm not a fan of the strikes. But that's because I think this is all contrived anyway. Rand can't afford to take the position I have.



People's issues with Rand Paul's foreign policy are legitimate. I'd much prefer not to have my intelligence insulted or my concerns belittled or even being called a shill for calling Rand Paul out on his bad stances. Who knows, maybe one day he'll change his position? Ron Paul was rather 'hawkish' during the Cold War era, now he is one of the loudest proponents for non-interventionism. Just to state the obvious, it does not make me a "Rand hater" to disagree with a few of his votes or his overall foreign policy, for that matter. He has done much good and is the best Senator in US history.

Oh I agree. I'm probably the first Ron Paul supporter to ever express any doubt about Rand. But to ignore the fact that Ron supported strikes against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and to conflate his regret to some kind of "Never ever ever strike at terrorists anywhere no matter what" position is a bit disingenuous.

Brian4Liberty
10-26-2014, 01:47 PM
526351667613413376

acptulsa
10-26-2014, 01:54 PM
Oh well. Go Royals. ;)

And Chiefs. We can at least agree on that.

I'm on board.

And the Chiefs are, too! :D

devil21
10-26-2014, 02:10 PM
If the trolling in this thread (mod edit) is any indication, the Zionists are very worried about the impact of this speech. Spread the video around!

edit: troll list in this thread removed from my post by admin.

Christian Liberty
10-26-2014, 02:17 PM
Why the obsession with Israel? We give foreign aid to a lot more countries than just Israel, but yet your obsession is with the foreign aid that we give to Israel. This is one reason why social conservatives and evangelicals are so skeptical of the liberty movement, because you have a lot of people who appear to take much more of an anti Israel point of view rather than a neutral point of view.

Those social conservatives who think Israel is "God's chosen nation" and practically think the US is as well cannot be helped. They will never join with us. We have to win without them.

Those who more support Israel for pragmatic reasons (ie. "only democracy in the Middle East" and so forth) should know the bad things that Israel is doing. No, I'm not denying that Israel is a better place to live than Iran. But they aren't exactly best buddies with Christians, and they have done wrong things in the Palestinian conflict as well.

I agree that Israeli government shouldn't be singled out in the sense that I want to cut off foreign aid for everybody, not just Israel. But our alliance with Israel is hurting our relations with the rest of the Middle East, and it is frankly bad for the United States. And Israel isn't exactly a saint of a nation either. So, I don't really see anything wrong with anti-Israel rhetoric as long as its not ridiculous and over the top. No other nation gets as much American help in that region as Israel does.

philipped
10-26-2014, 02:24 PM
Israel supposedly knew about 9/11, didn't tell us and people are literally crying about making sure that they still get foreign aid??? This can't be real life...

twomp
10-26-2014, 02:40 PM
You guys really need to stop comparing Ron to Rand. Ron is borderline supremely overrated.



Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

That post pretty much flew over your head huh? Barbara Lee was the ONLY person who voted against the AUMF. Do you know what that is? That is the reason the video was shown. You, showing your inability to understand the post somehow decided to turn that post into a racist comment. Way to show your ignorance.

devil21
10-26-2014, 02:44 PM
You guys really need to stop comparing Ron to Rand. Ron is borderline supremely overrated.


Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

Calling Ron "supremely overrated" and "racist" should be an automatic ban!

jmdrake
10-26-2014, 03:12 PM
Really? Because unlike Ron Paul, Barbara Lee had it right from the beginning. And guess what, she managed to win re-election after her "crazy" lone vote against AUMF.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh_sxilhyV0

Good for her! But she wasn't having to run in Ron's district.

Crashland
10-26-2014, 03:50 PM
Those social conservatives who think Israel is "God's chosen nation" and practically think the US is as well cannot be helped. They will never join with us. We have to win without them.

Those who more support Israel for pragmatic reasons (ie. "only democracy in the Middle East" and so forth) should know the bad things that Israel is doing. No, I'm not denying that Israel is a better place to live than Iran. But they aren't exactly best buddies with Christians, and they have done wrong things in the Palestinian conflict as well.

I agree that Israeli government shouldn't be singled out in the sense that I want to cut off foreign aid for everybody, not just Israel. But our alliance with Israel is hurting our relations with the rest of the Middle East, and it is frankly bad for the United States. And Israel isn't exactly a saint of a nation either. So, I don't really see anything wrong with anti-Israel rhetoric as long as its not ridiculous and over the top. No other nation gets as much American help in that region as Israel does.

I don't think we can win without them. It is a make-or-break issue for a lot of voters and most of those voters are Republicans. There's no way that Rand can afford to say anything even remotely anti-Israel, at least not before the primary is over.

jjdoyle
10-26-2014, 04:27 PM
I don't think we can win without them. It is a make-or-break issue for a lot of voters and most of those voters are Republicans. There's no way that Rand can afford to say anything even remotely anti-Israel, at least not before the primary is over.

The Value Voters Summit straw poll should be clear evidence, I think, that these voters will not vote for Rand, first, second, or third. There needs to be a path to the GOP nomination without them, and without the southern states.

Don't count on Iowa or South Carolina if Mike Huckabee is running, or Florida is another candidate is. New Hampshire should be a good first bet, but I'm not sure where it goes after that. Maine? Maybe Nevada? I would think Maine, since Ron almost beat Romney in Maine without running a single attack ad against him in the state.

But, when we look at past Republican nominees, Iowa, New Hampshire, and/or South Carolina are important first wins, but Florida usually seals it up after those. If Jeb Bush is running, I don't see how Florida is even in play during the primary.

And being against all foreign aid, has nothing to do with being anti-Israel, it has to do with being pro-American, and being a constitutional fiscal conservative.

Which Representative recently read the 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report that are classified, and said he had to stop and rethink what history had told him? The same Representative that was the single lone "Nay" vote, on a recent bill for more funding to Israel.

Just because you are voting against foreign funding, doesn't mean being anti. It might be the exact opposite actually. Being a pro-Constitution, fiscal, conservative.

It's why I said Thomas Massie should run for President in 2016. I know that he at the very least has read the 28 classified pages of the 9/11 Commission Report, and that he didn't vote for more funding to a country that potentially makes me and my family less safe.

Matt Collins
10-26-2014, 05:11 PM
And Rand's approach will be victorious?If the election were held tomorrow, Rand would win.

Matt Collins
10-26-2014, 05:13 PM
The Value Voters Summit straw poll should be clear evidence, I think, that these voters will not vote for Rand, first, second, or third. You don't know what you're talking about. Straw polls are meaningless because it is all about mobilization and turn out; those events are almost never organic and absolutely never a predictor of future electoral results.

Feeding the Abscess
10-26-2014, 05:33 PM
In 18 months, say by March 2016, we will see if Rand's pragmatic finesse approach works any better, or not. If it's NOT, the movement will have to make a choice going forward about taking the beat around the bush approach, or go back to supporting going with open principle, as per Ron.

If Rand's approach doesn't work, there won't be a movement to go back to, so changing strategy won't be an issue.

jjdoyle
10-26-2014, 05:37 PM
You don't know what you're talking about. Straw polls are meaningless because it is all about mobilization and turn out; those events are almost never organic and absolutely never a predictor of future electoral results.

Straw polls are meaningless if you lose them. But great if you win them. Rand said it himself:

http://youtu.be/IZ0f7qcMqnE?t=1m12s

The Values Voters Summit straw poll showed that despite Rand Paul and Rick Santorum both giving speeches at it, Rick Santorum still having campaign debt and little/no organization was able to get more votes than Rand. The guy you just claimed would win if the election were held tomorrow.

Slutter McGee
10-26-2014, 06:15 PM
KCChiefs, I have to apologize to you for what I said about you last night. Even though you're sometimes not exactly civil to me, as a Christian I'm commanded to love those I don't get along with very well. So I apologize for the personal attacks and will delete my comments.


Don't apologize. Insult these assholes. Being turned off by libertarians is a wake up call to these pricks....perhaps molesting 8 year old girls will finally be a bad thing for these fucktards.

Christian Liberty
10-26-2014, 06:17 PM
Don't apologize. Insult these assholes. Being turned off by libertarians is a wake up call to these pricks....perhaps molesting 8 year old girls will finally be a bad thing for these fucktards.

When has anyone said it wasn't? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

Crashland
10-26-2014, 07:23 PM
I'm starting to wonder if Rand's moderate foreign policy might actually be a political death sentence. Rand is the one taking the most sensible position, yet he is getting lambasted hard from both extremes. Being moderate doesn't help if there actually aren't any moderates.

devil21
10-26-2014, 07:39 PM
I'm starting to wonder if Rand's moderate foreign policy might actually be a political death sentence. Rand is the one taking the most sensible position, yet he is getting lambasted hard from both extremes. Being moderate doesn't help if there actually aren't any moderates.

Most of the 'lambasting' you're reading is posted by AIPAC trolls, trying to confuse the issue and give an impression that doesn't actually exist outside of their little propaganda-filled world. If Rand is being attacked by both extremes then it's proof he's doing something right. Don't forget that foreign policy hawks control both the left and the right and have worked hard to co-opt ostensibly 'libertarian' groups to give the impression that Rand can't win.

Peace&Freedom
10-26-2014, 08:01 PM
If Rand's approach doesn't work, there won't be a movement to go back to, so changing strategy won't be an issue.

Oh yes it will, as it will result in major lessons learned. A defeat of Rand circa march 2016 (e.g., with him failing to win, or being cheated out of winning any primaries, just as before with Ron) would signal that either Paul has to run third party to change the dynamic. It would specifically show Rand's pragmatic approach made no difference in swaying the GOP primary system as currently set up by the establishment. Not to mention providing a 'strike three, RIP' to trusting the Paul Inc machine to successfully manage a liberty presidential candidacy---it will have shown, after three losses, that it can't.

It would show, for the third time, that Ron and Rand's attempt to battle the all-stops-out interventionists without ever challenging the "we're under threat" framework that gives current interventionism its credibility and momentum, was a fundamental error. Evading discussing the role of 9-11 and other false flags or covert ops (in manufacturing the new wars) will have to be conceded to have been a key reason why both Pauls were unable to break the rank and file primary voters' mindset on foreign policy.

If we are on our way to defeat for the third time in March '16, either a national victory by the liberty movement will have been proven to be not possible under the current US political system, or that the Pauls being the unquestioned leaders of it since '07 has been the problem. A post-Paul liberty candidacy in 2020 with a different leader (Napolitano? Amash? etc), that avoids the above mistakes, may then be the way to proceed going forward.

Brett85
10-26-2014, 08:24 PM
Don't apologize. Insult these assholes. Being turned off by libertarians is a wake up call to these pricks....perhaps molesting 8 year old girls will finally be a bad thing for these fucktards.

Lol.

Brett85
10-26-2014, 08:26 PM
I'm starting to wonder if Rand's moderate foreign policy might actually be a political death sentence. Rand is the one taking the most sensible position, yet he is getting lambasted hard from both extremes. Being moderate doesn't help if there actually aren't any moderates.

Most Americans are in the middle on foreign policy issues and not on either extreme. Rand's foreign policy will resonate with the vast majority of the American people. The people on both extremes who attack him only speak for a very small number of people.

Matt Collins
10-26-2014, 09:13 PM
Oh yes it will, as it will result in major lessons learned. A defeat of Rand circa march 2016 (e.g., with him failing to win, or being cheated out of winning any primaries, just as before with Ron) would signal that either Paul has to run third party to change the dynamic. No, not at all. It simply means we keep trying until successful because we get closer with each try. A third party presidential route is a non-starter. Not to mention that it is impossible to win the Presidency as a 3rd party candidate.




It would specifically show Rand's pragmatic approach made no difference in swaying the GOP primary system as currently set up by the establishment. Not to mention providing a 'strike three, RIP' to trusting the Paul Inc machine to successfully manage a liberty presidential candidacy---it will have shown, after three losses, that it can't.

It would show, for the third time, that Ron and Rand's attempt to battle the all-stops-out interventionists without ever challenging the "we're under threat" framework that gives current interventionism its credibility and momentum, was a fundamental error. Evading discussing the role of 9-11 and other false flags or covert ops (in manufacturing the new wars) will have to be conceded to have been a key reason why both Pauls were unable to break the rank and file primary voters' mindset on foreign policy.

If we are on our way to defeat for the third time in March '16, either a national victory by the liberty movement will have been proven to be not possible under the current US political system, or that the Pauls being the unquestioned leaders of it since '07 has been the problem. A post-Paul liberty candidacy in 2020 with a different leader (Napolitano? Amash? etc), that avoids the above mistakes, may then be the way to proceed going forward.You have no idea what you are talking about, are highly ignorant of the process, and your conspiracy talk is not welcome here.

Occam's Banana
10-26-2014, 09:23 PM
Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

That post pretty much flew over your head huh? Barbara Lee was the ONLY person who voted against the AUMF. Do you know what that is? That is the reason the video was shown. You, showing your inability to understand the post somehow decided to turn that post into a racist comment. Way to show your ignorance.

Vanguard101 enjoys shouting about "racism" without having any idea what he's talking about.

This was not the first time: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453979-Was-Mises-a-racist
(Against which, see here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453979-Was-Mises-a-racist&p=5567096&viewfull=1#post5567096)

I doubt it will be the last ...

Carlybee
10-26-2014, 09:31 PM
Okay. So what happens when the PTB ramp up the fear factor and we start conveniently having more terror attacks etc.? Boobus isn't exactly comprised of free thinkers.

jtstellar
10-27-2014, 01:01 AM
You get peace by loving peace, not by hating war.

devil21
10-27-2014, 01:39 AM
You guys don't know what non-interventionism means. Sigh.

You tell us what it means then, young padawan. I'd like to read your thoughts on it, seeing how old and wise you are.

Peace&Freedom
10-27-2014, 03:44 AM
No, not at all. It simply means we keep trying until successful because we get closer with each try. A third party presidential route is a non-starter. Not to mention that it is impossible to win the Presidency as a 3rd party candidate.


You have no idea what you are talking about, are highly ignorant of the process, and your conspiracy talk is not welcome here.

The point behind the third party run would be to salvage Rand getting the Republican nomination, by shaking the rank and file voters out of viewing the establishment frontrunner as being electable (in time for them to still vote for Rand in the primaries). The scenario I discussed (not winning a single GOP primary, three straight times) where the 3rd party angle is tried, is precisely one where we have NOT "gotten closer with each try" despite following all the normal rules. As for such a run in and of itself, we have never seen what a seriously well-funded, nationally supported candidate running on a minor party line through Election day would do, to definitively assert that no candidate could be elected that way.

To repeat, not winning a single primary each time is NOT "getting better with each try." And pointing out our failing to engage the main obstacle that has made people deaf to a liberty foreign policy view, is neither ignorant nor paranoid. I suspect avoiding false flags or covert activity, and its role in conjuring a fear mindset that we are continuously under threat, will make voters ignore the Paul approach a third time, unless the subject is openly engaged. At some point, those avoiding the matter have to be held accountable for the defeats we keep receiving, following that approach. And the failures of the Paul campaign machine will have to be examined, if they follow that approach (among other blunders) and cause us to lose a third time. I'm open to be proven wrong by what happens with Rand over the next 18 months, but I expect accountability by the other side if the same thing happens as I've outlined.

Matt Collins
10-27-2014, 08:57 AM
The point behind the third party run would be to salvage Rand getting the Republican nomination, by shaking the rank and file voters out of viewing the establishment frontrunner as being electable (in time for them to still vote for Rand in the primaries). The scenario I discussed (not winning a single GOP primary, three straight times) where the 3rd party angle is tried, is precisely one where we have NOT "gotten closer with each try" despite following all the normal rules. As for such a run in and of itself, we have never seen what a seriously well-funded, nationally supported candidate running on a minor party line through Election day would do, to definitively assert that no candidate could be elected that way.

1 - yes we are getting closer, Ron '12 got more delegates than he did in '08. And he got way more votes in '08 than '89.

2 - Ross Perot even with his billions of dollars couldn't win the Presidency in a 3rd party.

Vanguard101
10-27-2014, 11:02 AM
That post pretty much flew over your head huh? Barbara Lee was the ONLY person who voted against the AUMF. Do you know what that is? That is the reason the video was shown. You, showing your inability to understand the post somehow decided to turn that post into a racist comment. Way to show your ignorance.
Actually, your post pretty much flew over your head. I forget most of you guys are 100% white and do not understand what it means to be black. It doesn't matter if she was the only dissenter. It's clear you don't understand race relations. You are comparing a white male with a decent amount of popularity to an african american female, that has the support of her race. Do you honestly think tough criticism would fall on her from her own base knowing race relations?


Calling Ron "supremely overrated" and "racist" should be an automatic ban!
I didn't call him racist. He is borderline supremely overrated. You guys overrate him far too much when discussing Rand.


Vanguard101 enjoys shouting about "racism" without having any idea what he's talking about.

This was not the first time: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453979-Was-Mises-a-racist
(Against which, see here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453979-Was-Mises-a-racist&p=5567096&viewfull=1#post5567096)

I doubt it will be the last ...

You consistently stay on my dick. Fall back

twomp
10-27-2014, 11:29 AM
Actually, your post pretty much flew over your head. I forget most of you guys are 100% white and do not understand what it means to be black. It doesn't matter if she was the only dissenter. It's clear you don't understand race relations. You are comparing a white male with a decent amount of popularity to an african american female, that has the support of her race. Do you honestly think tough criticism would fall on her from her own base knowing race relations?


I didn't call him racist. He is borderline supremely overrated. You guys overrate him far too much when discussing Rand.



You consistently stay on my dick. Fall back

Actually, I'm asian. But thanks again for highlighting your stupidity. It's awesome to watch.

Vanguard101
10-27-2014, 12:28 PM
That post pretty much flew over your head huh? Barbara Lee was the ONLY person who voted against the AUMF. Do you know what that is? That is the reason the video was shown. You, showing your inability to understand the post somehow decided to turn that post into a racist comment. Way to show your ignorance.


Calling Ron "supremely overrated" and "racist" should be an automatic ban!


Vanguard101 enjoys shouting about "racism" without having any idea what he's talking about.

This was not the first time: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453979-Was-Mises-a-racist
(Against which, see here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453979-Was-Mises-a-racist&p=5567096&viewfull=1#post5567096)

I doubt it will be the last ...


Actually, I'm asian. But thanks again for highlighting your stupidity. It's awesome to watch.
That's even worse. What's even worse is the fact that you were too stupid to realize I didn't call you white. Try again idiot. Keep comparing a black congresswoman to Paul though

twomp
10-27-2014, 01:03 PM
That's even worse. What's even worse is the fact that you were too stupid to realize I didn't call you white. Try again idiot. Keep comparing a black congresswoman to Paul though

LOL!! You are so funny! I feel like I'm talking with a child throwing a hissy fit. YOU brought racism into this. Remeber this quote?


Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

Racist ties? Who brought that up? YOU DID! Then you go stumbling around trying to explain how your comment has anything to do with the topic people are discussing. Do you know what the AUMF is? Everyone voted to authorize it except for ONE person and she ended up being the one that was right all along. So her video was linked. The fact that she was black had NOTHING to do with anything. But somehow you in your brilliant mind decided to link that to racism.... Then you go bumbling around trying to explain yourself. Making yourself look even more stupid every post.

Good job! You crack me up! Genius!

Occam's Banana
10-27-2014, 03:43 PM
You consistently stay on my dick. Fall back

You consistently see racism where there isn't any. Fall back.

If you persist in doing this, you are going to become the RPFs version of "the boy who cried wolf" when it comes to racism.
Once you get that reputation, people around here will not take you seriously if and when you decry actual, genuine racism.

NIU Students for Liberty
10-27-2014, 03:47 PM
Actually, your post pretty much flew over your head. I forget most of you guys are 100% white and do not understand what it means to be black. It doesn't matter if she was the only dissenter. It's clear you don't understand race relations. You are comparing a white male with a decent amount of popularity to an african american female, that has the support of her race. Do you honestly think tough criticism would fall on her from her own base knowing race relations?

If you want to bring race into this, you do realize that another black candidate within her own party (not too many black Republicans in her district) could have challenged Lee, right?

NIU Students for Liberty
10-27-2014, 03:59 PM
I didn't call him racist. He is borderline supremely overrated. You guys overrate him far too much when discussing Rand.

What the hell does "borderline supremely overrated" even mean? Even with his colossal failure in voting for AUMF, Ron has done more to help spread awareness to the war/police state than any public figure in decades.

Peace&Freedom
10-27-2014, 05:39 PM
1 - yes we are getting closer, Ron '12 got more delegates than he did in '08. And he got way more votes in '08 than '89.

2 - Ross Perot even with his billions of dollars couldn't win the Presidency in a 3rd party.

1- As they say, stats are for losers. Ron not only didn't win a single state in either year, the primary race was basically over the same month (by February '08, and February '12).

2- Perot shot himself in the foot by pulling out of the race mid-summer, then re-inserting himself later in the year. He didn't spend even the $100 million he originally promised he would to run his "world class campaign," so we'll never know how well he would have done if he had gone in whole hog and undamaged.

US News has just confirmed the viability of Rand running for both party nominations. I guess they don't know what they're talking about either:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-too

Matt Collins
10-27-2014, 07:43 PM
Ron not only didn't win a single state in either yearYou are incorrect... Ron won multiple states in 2012.




2- Perot shot himself in the foot by pulling out of the race mid-summer, then re-inserting himself later in the year. He didn't spend even the $100 million he originally promised he would to run his "world class campaign," so we'll never know how well he would have done if he had gone in whole hog and undamaged.
No, it was not possible for a third party to win a Presidential election.



US News has just confirmed the viability of Rand running for both party nominations. I guess they don't know what they're talking about either:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/10/27/rand-paul-could-win-libertarian-nomination-tooThat was a subtle hit piece trying to tie Rand to the LP. And if the LP nominates Rand in abstentia it will mean nothing and in fact will likely hurt him due to the stigma that the LP carries with it.

Third party presidential candidates cannot win the Presidency. Anyone who thinks otherwise fails to understand the American political system. :rolleyes:

Peace&Freedom
10-27-2014, 08:27 PM
You are incorrect... Ron won multiple states in 2012.

No, it was not possible for a third party to win a Presidential election.


That was a subtle hit piece trying to tie Rand to the LP. And if the LP nominates Rand in abstentia it will mean nothing and in fact will likely hurt him due to the stigma that the LP carries with it.

Third party presidential candidates cannot win the Presidency. Anyone who thinks otherwise fails to understand the American political system. :rolleyes:

Paul won zero primaries, and the caucus cases are disputed, depending on how you do the count. Ignoring the substance of what I pointed out, and just repeating your propaganda line doesn't make it true. I do agree Rand would have to actively pursue the third party nod, an abstentia nomination would not happen, due to the stigma the GOP carries with it.

To repeat, a seriously funded, nationally popular figure can win as a third party candidate. The system is indeed designed to deprive such contenders of the money, media coverage and national momentum to be viable, but if the figure already has those features he can win, since he then has the means of bypassing the establishment obstacles. There just hasn't been a test case to provide proof of concept of this on election day (and no, Perot doesn't count, as he didn't spend the money, and compromised his momentum). Ron/Rand would be the first real case. ;)

Guitarzan
10-27-2014, 08:34 PM
You consistently see racism where there isn't any. Fall back.

If you persist in doing this, you are going to become the RPFs version of "the boy who cried wolf" when it comes to racism.
Once you get that reputation, people around here will not take you seriously if and when you decry actual, genuine racism.


I stopped taking Vanguard seriously when he stated that the war on drugs was unconstitutional because congress didn't declare it.

Vanguard says: You distinguish between libertarians and conservatives so where is your warrant for Cruz not being a conservative? Fiscal conservatism and positions on war are two entirely different things. Yes, I admit he's bad on some social issues and the federal drug war is only unconstitutional because it wasn't declared. I admit he's a hawk. Goldwater was a hawk too. In all honesty, I never asked you to stand with him. Oh and on Syria, you are wrong. He said he would vote no and gave legitimate reasons. That's when I began reconsidering him.

link: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?453213-Current-members-of-Team-Liberty&highlight=war+drugs

:D

Matt Collins
10-27-2014, 09:16 PM
Paul won zero primaries, and the caucus cases are disputed, depending on how you do the count. Ignoring the substance of what I pointed out, and just repeating your propaganda line doesn't make it true. I do agree Rand would have to actively pursue the third party nod, an abstentia nomination would not happen, due to the stigma the GOP carries with it.

To repeat, a seriously funded, nationally popular figure can win as a third party candidate. The system is indeed designed to deprive such contenders of the money, media coverage and national momentum to be viable, but if the figure already has those features he can win, since he then has the means of bypassing the establishment obstacles. There just hasn't been a test case to provide proof of concept of this on election day (and no, Perot doesn't count, as he didn't spend the money, and compromised his momentum). Ron/Rand would be the first real case. ;)
Rand does not want a 3rd party nomination, and Ron was smart enough not to want it either. Quit being obtuse, third parties are not viable. This has been explained numerous times, besides being self evident. Seriously, if you're going to join in the discussion here, at least make an effort to try and keep up.

Occam's Banana
10-28-2014, 12:14 AM
Rand does not want a 3rd party nomination, and Ron was smart enough not to want it either. Quit being obtuse, third parties are not viable. This has been explained numerous times, besides being self evident. Seriously, if you're going to join in the discussion here, at least make an effort to try and keep up.

Well, P&F, I guess you're just a hobo on the Liberty Train - and the railroad dick cometh ...

"Tickets, please!" ... or GTFO, you "riff raff" ... :rolleyes:

Peace&Freedom
10-28-2014, 08:23 AM
Rand does not want a 3rd party nomination, and Ron was smart enough not to want it either. Quit being obtuse, third parties are not viable. This has been explained numerous times, besides being self evident. Seriously, if you're going to join in the discussion here, at least make an effort to try and keep up.

I think I'm the one thinking 18 months ahead, and it's your propagandizing, shopworn cant that is the slow deer in the headlights. I've said my piece, and patiently counter-explained not only how the third party run is viable, but most likely the only viable scenario by which Rand will be able to leverage himself to a Republican nomination victory, all of which you have ignored. Circa the first day of spring in 2016, when Paul Inc. has again failed to get anywhere following the same failed approach, you will at last catch on.

Your view more self-serving than self evident. You've managed to not even pick up that I was not primarily talking about a third party run in and of itself (though it would be nice to see a Paul on the November 2016 ballot), but its usefulness to get Rand to victory in the GOP primaries. The obstacles to that goal are the same as they were '08 and '12, and absent the "game changer" counter-strategy mentioned, unlikely to be over taken by Rand. If you have a new, alternative plan for dealing with those obstacles, please provide it. Otherwise, we've tried it your way twice, and it doesn't work. Again, I hope I can be proven wrong. We'll see if things change in the next 18 months, that is all I will concede.

Vanguard101
10-28-2014, 10:14 AM
LOL!! You are so funny! I feel like I'm talking with a child throwing a hissy fit. YOU brought racism into this. Remeber this quote?


Racist ties? Who brought that up? YOU DID! Then you go stumbling around trying to explain how your comment has anything to do with the topic people are discussing. Do you know what the AUMF is? Everyone voted to authorize it except for ONE person and she ended up being the one that was right all along. So her video was linked. The fact that she was black had NOTHING to do with anything. But somehow you in your brilliant mind decided to link that to racism.... Then you go bumbling around trying to explain yourself. Making yourself look even more stupid every post.

Good job! You crack me up! Genius!
More stupidity. That comment about you being white does not bring racism into the thread.


The media projects Ron to have racist ties. They have done it for decades. I never once said Ron was RACIST. Quote me where I said Ron was RACIST.


You consistently see racism where there isn't any. Fall back.

If you persist in doing this, you are going to become the RPFs version of "the boy who cried wolf" when it comes to racism.
Once you get that reputation, people around here will not take you seriously if and when you decry actual, genuine racism.
I didn't read your post. You are still on my dick though.


What the hell does "borderline supremely overrated" even mean? Even with his colossal failure in voting for AUMF, Ron has done more to help spread awareness to the war/police state than any public figure in decades.
He's overrated when you guys make him some godsent infallible politician and everyone has to be exactly like him.
You guys want Rand to be a clone of Ron. What's ironic is he's basically a clone when factoring Ron's entire career in congress. Not just the few years he began blowing up.

[QUOTE=Guitarzan;5684097]I stopped taking Vanguard seriously when he stated that the war on drugs was unconstitutional because congress didn't declare it.

Vanguard says: You distinguish between libertarians and conservatives so where is your warrant for Cruz not being a conservative? Fiscal conservatism and positions on war are two entirely different things. Yes, I admit he's bad on some social issues and the federal drug war is only unconstitutional because it wasn't declared. I admit he's a hawk. Goldwater was a hawk too. In all honesty, I never asked you to stand with him. Oh and on Syria, you are wrong. He said he would vote no and gave legitimate reasons. That's when I began reconsidering him.
It was

Matt Collins
10-28-2014, 10:36 AM
how the third party run is viable, but most likely the only viable scenario by which Rand will be able to leverage himself to a Republican nomination victory, all of which you have ignored. Circa the first day of spring in 2016, when Paul Inc. has again failed to get anywhere following the same failed approach, you will at last catch on.
The world doesnt work that way, and it makes no sense to do that. Besides, Ron was smart enough to understand this.




but its usefulness to get Rand to victory in the GOP primaries. The obstacles to that goal are the same as they were '08 and '12, and absent the "game changer" counter-strategy mentioned, unlikely to be over taken by Rand. The GOP is not going to nominate someone based on the fact that they might run 3rd party. And besides, Rand is NOT going to run 3rd party, so it doesn't matter.

twomp
10-28-2014, 11:40 AM
More stupidity. That comment about you being white does not bring racism into the thread.



Do you even know how to read? Talk about stupid. DID YOU NOT SAY THIS?


Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

You brought racism into a thread that had nothing to do with racism all because a video was linked with a black congressmen speaking in it. Just simply linking that video automatically means racism to you now? Because you have a hard time understanding anything, you didn't realize that Barbara Lee was linked because she was CORRECT in her vote.

But you with that chip on your shoulder plus the fact that you are dumb as rocks decided to make it about racism for some stupid reason. Now you spent the rest of the time trying to explain your stupid reasoning for doing it (and failing miserably!). It's amusing watching you try to bumble your way out of this though. It's even MORE amusing to see how stupid you are that you can't even understand what you did.

BUT go ahead and cry RACISM again. It seems like you enjoy doing that. OMG OMG RACISM! OMG OMG! RACIST TIES!! OMG OMG!

Vanguard101
10-28-2014, 11:56 AM
Do you even know how to read? Talk about stupid. DID YOU NOT SAY THIS?



You brought racism into a thread that had nothing to do with racism all because a video was linked with a black congressmen speaking in it. Just simply linking that video automatically means racism to you now? Because you have a hard time understanding anything, you didn't realize that Barbara Lee was linked because she was CORRECT in her vote.

But you with that chip on your shoulder plus the fact that you are dumb as rocks decided to make it about racism for some stupid reason. Now you spent the rest of the time trying to explain your stupid reasoning for doing it (and failing miserably!). It's amusing watching you try to bumble your way out of this though. It's even MORE amusing to see how stupid you are that you can't even understand what you did.

BUT go ahead and cry RACISM again. It seems like you enjoy doing that. OMG OMG RACISM! OMG OMG! RACIST TIES!! OMG OMG!

You are really stupid. Me discussing you being white is not a conversation about RACISM. Racism deals with the superiority of one race over another dickhead. The rest of your post is you crying because you are too incompetent to understand what I posted.

twomp
10-28-2014, 02:20 PM
You are really stupid. Me discussing you being white is not a conversation about RACISM. Racism deals with the superiority of one race over another dickhead. The rest of your post is you crying because you are too incompetent to understand what I posted.

NO you saying that the simple act of linking a video with a black congresswoman somehow implies racism. THAT WAS WHEN IT STARTED. Get it? Probably not, I"ll be back in an hour to explain it to you again because you don't either don't know how to think or how to read. Possibly both.


Comparing a black woman to someone with racist ties? Wow, your ignorance is showing.

See that quote? Read it again. Maybe 2 or 3 more times. How is that you discussing about me being white huh? Read what you wrote again Einstein. LOL idiot.

Occam's Banana
10-28-2014, 06:27 PM
[...] unlike Ron Paul, Barbara Lee had it right from the beginning.

Everyone voted to authorize [the AUMF] except for [Lee] and she ended up being the one that was right all along.

[Ron Paul is] overrated when you guys make him some godsent infallible politician [...]

NIU and twomp have both clearly and explicitly said that they think Barbara Lee was right and Ron Paul was wrong ...

... yet (according to you) they make Ron Paul out to be an "infallible politician" ...

You complain about them "comparing a black woman [Barbara Lee] to someone with racist ties [Ron Paul]" - despite the blindingly obvious fact (to anyone who is able to read plain English) that the comparison was made in favor of Lee and in criticism of Paul.


I didn't read your post.

It doesn't matter. Given the above, I have to doubt that you'd have chosen to understand it if you had.


You are still on my dick though.

*sigh* If you want people off your dick, there's a very simple solution: stop sticking it under peoples' shoes.