Sen. Paul Responds to Attacks in Israel

[Virgil]

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1242

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today issued the following statement in response to the brutal attack that took place in a Jerusalem synagogue, resulting in the death of three Americans:

"I am deeply saddened and alarmed by the attacks that took place early this morning in Israel. These men of faith were cruelly murdered as they were worshiping in their synagogue in Har Nof. I vow to Stand with Israel and I will continue to do all I can to protect Americans at home and abroad. This is a horrific act of violence that should be universally condemned. We must demand that Palestinian leaders stop the incitement, which they have committed in word and in deed. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Israel," Sen. Paul said.

-virgil

[twomp]

The people that did this are idiots. Not only did they kill people who most likely had nothing to do with their struggle. Their actions will now cause the Israeli government to put their boots back on the necks of their own people.

[ClydeCoulter]

smh

edit: Why the hell does this incite a "I vow to stand with Israel"?

[DFF]

Netanyahu murdered 3,000 Palestinians in Gaza. The IDF deliberately targeted women, children, hospitals and schools. Did anyone honestly think there wouldn't some form of payback for this?

[francisco]

The people that did this are idiots. Not only did they kill people who most likely had nothing to do with their struggle. Their actions will now cause the Israeli government to put their boots back on the necks of their own people.

Actually and unfortunately, the people that did this are aware of that effect and increasing the level of conflict is very much their desired outcome. They want Israel to crack down --in order to justify further escalation. Having the Israeli government putting boots back on the necks of their own people is viewed as an issue of the end justifying the means. They are statists. They don't care about their own individual people-as-pawns that will get hurt. Only the longer view of 'the collective" matters to them. Of course, the Israelis aren't much different in this regard.

[green73]

smh

[PierzStyx]

The people that did this are idiots. Not only did they kill people who most likely had nothing to do with their struggle. Their actions will now cause the Israeli government to put their boots back on the necks of their own people.

Nah, that is what the people who did this want. Unending war ensures their power. It is of course also is what Israel's military-industrial complex wants as well, as it ensures their power. Both state powers win, both groups of people lose.

Question is: Why is Rand Paul for funding the oppressive death machine that is the Israeli military?

[enhanced_deficit]

Will be searching if Rand had issued a statement to defend Americans when this news came out last month.

Israeli army kills 14-year old Palestinian with US citizenship (http://mondoweiss.net/2014/10/israeli-palestinian-citizenship)
Oct 26, 2014 - A Palestinian teen with U.S. citizenship was killed today by the Israeli army at a demonstration in the West Bank town of Silwad, near Ramallah.


How and when it became compulsory for almost all US Presidential candidates to show their support for a foreign blowback generator country? Guess Rand has to drink water from same well where most other ambitious politicians are lined up.

[NOVALibertarian]

Question is: Why is Rand Paul for funding the oppressive death machine that is the Israeli military?

Because winning a presidential election is hard to accomplish when your opponents are constantly labeling you an "anti-semite" for not "standing with the only Democracy in the Middle East" or whatever endearing sentence they use to justify our alliance with Israel.

[robert68]

After over 2,000 Palestinians were killed by Israel recently, he said:



...I think it is clear by now: Israel has shown remarkable restraint... (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381726/tragedy-israel-rand-paul)

[Brett85]

And this is why Rand actually has a chance to become President.

[Natural Citizen]

And this is why Rand actually has a chance to become President.

Seems like nothing more than a glorified secretary position any more. Presidents don't power. Seems like they just read teleprompters showing them what they're supposed to say for benefit of the fellers who are really running things. No? Am I wrong about that? If so then how so?

[Brett85]

Seems like nothing more than a glorified secretary position any more. Presidents don't power. Seems like they just read teleprompters showing them what they're supposed to say for benefit of the fellers who are really running things. No? Am I wrong about that? If so then how so?

A President has significant power to enact liberty if he chose to use it. For example, the President could bring all of our troops home from overseas on his own, and he could pardon all non violent drug offenders in federal prison. He could also repeal thousands and thousands of previous executive orders that took away liberty from the American people.

[robert68]

And this is why Rand actually has a chance to become President.

Get back when he's won some primaries and leading the field in the delegate count.

[YesI'mALiberal]

Because winning a presidential election is hard to accomplish when your opponents are constantly labeling you an "anti-semite" for not "standing with the only Democracy in the Middle East" or whatever endearing sentence they use to justify our alliance with Israel.

Hard, perhaps ... but Barack Obama managed to do it twice.

Or maybe you mean "winning a Republican nomination."

[Brett85]

Get back when he's won some primaries and leading the field in the delegate count.

I will. He's already polling higher than Ron ever polled.

[Natural Citizen]

I will. He's already polling higher than Ron ever polled.

Ron is the peoples champion. You have to watch the whole minute and twenty-five seconds to understand why. He tells you there at the end.

That is to say that the people are leaving both establishment political parties in numbers that we haven't seen in modern history. Poll that. Rand Paul isn't half the statesman that his father was and continues to be.

Do we think that Ron and his influence just went away? That his people just went away? Because they aren't a part of your little poll? Think again.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebgph_ToT40

[green73]

I will. He's already polling higher than Ron ever polled.

And how many minds has he freed?

I know. Freeing people's minds means nothing to statists. Change can only come from political office.

[Brett85]

Do we think that Ron and his influence just went away? That his people just went away? Because they aren't a part of your little poll? Think again.

They are part of the poll. They're the same people supporting Rand.

[Natural Citizen]

They are part of the poll. They're the same people supporting Rand.

Well, you just keep thinking that.

I've shared this before. Will share it again. Pay attention. Pay close attention.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67rfMbw-3e0

[Working Poor]

Seems like nothing more than a glorified secretary position any more. Presidents don't power. Seems like they just read teleprompters showing them what they're supposed to say for benefit of the fellers who are really running things. No? Am I wrong about that? If so then how so?

I am convinced that anyone who gains a presidential nomination will only do so if they are willing to do the bidding of the elite and probably have swear some kind of secret oath to them as well.

[Brett85]

Well, you just keep thinking that.

Rand has the support of the liberty movement except for the most extreme elements, and he wouldn't want the support of the most extreme elements. If he had the support of people who go around and advocate the murder of cops, for instance, then he would have no chance at all to become President. The only way he can win is if he disassociates himself from those people.

[Natural Citizen]

I am convinced that anyone who gains a presidential nomination will only do so if they are willing to do the bidding of the elite and probably have swear some kind of secret oath to them as well.

Anymore, I believe that myself, Working Poor. I'm seeing Rand Paul recite the same foreign policy narrative as Obama and Bush more and more.

[Brett85]

Anymore, I believe that myself, Working Poor. I'm seeing Rand Paul recite the same foreign policy narrative as Obama and Bush more and more.

Like when he told Hannity the other day that past U.S intervention is responsible for the rise of ISIS?

[DevilsAdvocate]

Wow, that paragraph just seems so unnatural. It sounds like it's been through the wash more than a couple times. I wonder how many focus groups worked on it?

I like Rand a lot, and I know that he's on our side. But it's just interesting to watch how someone as genuine as him can morph himself into one of these faceless political guys, where everything they say is carefully controlled, with every single word chosen deliberately and processed a thousand times. It's the art of deception.

I didn't really notice it until I saw his Bill Maher interview, where instead of answering Bills questions directly, he went off into a carefully manufactured political diatribe specifically tailored for Bill's audience. I know he's playing the game, and he has a real chance to win the presidency, but sometimes I wonder if he's gone too far.

[Natural Citizen]

Rand has the support of the liberty movement except for the most extreme elements, and he wouldn't want the support of the most extreme elements. If he had the support of people who go around and advocate the murder of cops, for instance, then he would have no chance at all to become President. The only way he can win is if he disassociates himself from those people.

You're telling me that 50% of the voters are now extremists? 50 % of the voters go around and advocate the murder of cops? 50%. That's the percentage of voters that are leaving both of these establishment parties. If you think for a second that justifying that rejection by calling them extremists then some establishment propagandists are far more afraid of the will of people than thought.

That response just blows my mind. Jiiiiminy crickets. Half the people that I know are cops. But I and others are extremists and go around advocating for their murder all of a sudden because boy wonder can't carry Ron's historic base? What a load of propaganda.

[Brett85]

You're telling me that 50% of the voters are now extremists? 50 % of the voters go around and advocate the murder of cops? 50%. That's the percentage of voters that are leaving both of these establishment parties. If you think for a second that justifying that rejection by calling them extremists then some establishment propagandists are far more afraid of the will of people than thought.

That response just blows my mind. Jiiiiminy crickets. Half the people that I know are cops. What a load of porpaganda.

Where in the world did you get that? My comment was that Rand has the support of all of Ron's supporters except for those on the extreme fringe. I didn't say anything at all about the 50% of voters who are independents. (If it's that high. I don't think it is)

[green73]

I am convinced that anyone who gains a presidential nomination will only do so if they are willing to do the bidding of the elite and probably have swear some kind of secret oath to them as well.


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

[Natural Citizen]

I didn't say anything at all about the 50% of voters who are independents.

Of course you didn't. I had to bring it up. Ta daaaaaa

I'm logging off. You're plucking my nerves now.

[Natural Citizen]

Like when he told Hannity the other day that past U.S intervention is responsible for the rise of ISIS?

I wouldn't know. I don't listen to Hannity. Nor will I. I don't care what he thinks or says about anything. At all.

But if you'd like I'll make a list and post it. How is that? Will that work for you? Hannity doesn't get to dictate the terms of contioversy. Maybe in boobus' world but not mine. Not in the real world.

NOW I'm logging off. I didn't see that pablum previously and didn't want you to think that I ignored it. I didn't. And I won't .

[NOVALibertarian]

Of course you didn't. I had to bring it up. Ta daaaaaa

Just because 50% of people (allegedly) don't associate with the two major parties, it doesn't necessarily mean that 50% of people supported Ron Paul. If that was the case, Ron Paul would be President right now. Plus, you're putting way too much stock into this 50% number. I have no idea what poll you're referencing, but calling yourself
"independent" doesn't necessarily mean that said individual will vote for a third party. It just means that said individual's political views don't swing to either extreme and/or they're too embarrassed to tell the pollster that they identify as a Republican or a Democrat.



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

If true, what is to stop said President from going all Night of the Long Knives on these people?

[green73]

If true, what is to stop said President from going all Night of the Long Knives on these people?

I don't think you realize the extent and depth of the Oligarch's political control. It's not just a few fellows.

[Natural Citizen]

Just because 50% of people (allegedly) don't associate with the two major parties, it doesn't necessarily mean that 50% of people supported Ron Paul. If that was the case, Ron Paul would be President right now. Plus, you're putting way too much stock into this 50% number. I have no idea what poll you're referencing, but calling yourself "independent" doesn't necessarily mean that said individual will vote for a third party. It just means that said individual's political views don't swing to either extreme and/or they're too embarrassed to tell the pollster that they identify as a Republican or a Democrat.



Hoooolyyy Smokes. You're fully indoctrinated, arent you. Do we NOT know how to evaluate the statistics of what just happened in the mid-term? Stock? I'm telling you like it is. And, btw, not to toot my own horn but I recall specifically saying more than a few times on this very forum a year and a half ago that we'd see the largest turnout of independent voters in modern history. I said it word for word. And we did. This will continue.

I'm not even going to consider the rest of your question. Ron could have walked away with 80% of the vote and he still would have lost. It's rigged. And then you have corporate/legacy media right there in the middle of it and narrating the whole thing. They sure did serve Ron's popularity well now didn't they? The guy didn't even show up on their reporting where he was winning but they sure did tell us how the establishment fellers were doing. Cripes, they couln't even put his picture next to his name. Sometimes you'd see an entirely diferent picture of another candidate next to his name. And I could go on and on with that.

I cannot believe that some folks are truly so naive and deluded to just assume and insinuate that we just walked off of the boat yesterday. I've been doing this for over thirty years. If I say 50% then by gosh you can rest assured that it's just that. "Allegedly". Phhht.

[Brett85]

Of course you didn't. I had to bring it up. Ta daaaaaa

I'm logging off. You're plucking my nerves now.

Perhaps I was being a bit unfair, but criticizing Rand for condemning murder is about as radical and extreme as you can possibly get, and it does seem to me like Rand is better off without people like that supporting him.

[presence]

Call me cynical... but if anyone is going to false flag its Zionist Israel.

[Christian Liberty]

Rand has the support of the liberty movement except for the most extreme elements, and he wouldn't want the support of the most extreme elements. If he had the support of people who go around and advocate the murder of cops, for instance, then he would have no chance at all to become President. The only way he can win is if he disassociates himself from those people.

I understand there are a few people who borderline do this (even then its sort of borderline) but most of the time its really more nuanced than that. There are some anarcho-capitalists who support Rand and some non-ancaps who don't, so I don't know that you're statement is strictly accurate.

BTW: I didn't have a problem with what Rand said in this instance.

[Brett85]

I understand there are a few people who borderline do this (even then its sort of borderline) but most of the time its really more nuanced than that. There are some anarcho-capitalists who support Rand and some non-ancaps who don't, so I don't know that you're statement is strictly accurate.

BTW: I didn't have a problem with what Rand said in this instance.

Yeah, I probably got a little carried away with what I said. I just think it's ridiculous for people to criticize Rand for condemning murder.

[green73]

Yeah, I probably got a little carried away with what I said. I just think it's ridiculous for people to criticize Rand for condemning murder.

LOL. You're such a fucking joke.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, I probably got a little carried away with what I said. I just think it's ridiculous for people to criticize Rand for condemning murder.

There are a number of issues with Rand. I still support him, but I'm not happy with everything.

I'm going to assume the best and say that the people who are condemning Rand are doing so not because they think what Rand was condemning was actually OK, but because they think Rand is being a hypocrite for not also condemning Palestinian murders. Kind of like I sometimes condemn people for being hypocrites because they condemn the 9/11 attacks and yet support the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagisaki and so forth. That would probably make me a "radical extremist" in your mind but it doesn't mean I support the 9/11 attacks.

Assuming the best about the people who are criticizing Rand, my thoughts are:

1. I understand

and

2. Really, there are things that Rand is doing that are more questionable than this. It makes sense that Rand is emphasizing things that are going to make him popular and not things that won't. I can live with it.

[Brett85]

LOL. You're such a fucking joke.

What does that make you? You're the one who doesn't have any problem with murder, as long as the dead people are Jews.

[Natural Citizen]

I understand there are a few people who borderline do this (even then its sort of borderline)


There are some nuts out there that align themselves with the liberty movement. But that's a different discussion.

At the end of the day, though, if we recall what our framers had mentioned, we send representatives to Washington to support us. It's not the other way around where some folks just blend in with the bad guys there and then go looking for support. Uh-uh. Nope. That's not how it's supposed to work. It's not about them. It's about us. It's why we send them.

The problem is that we like to do it the other way around and subsequently become selective with the us part. Not Israel. Us

You know, when Columbus supposedly discovered America, what he did was he avoided the better route and aside from all of the fear that those people had back then about the Earth being flat as well as other things, they chose to go the way that, although terrifying, and much harder, completely avoided the Middle East. Now, that's saying something. Those people have been doing this to each other for centuries.

[Tywysog Cymru]

We need to remember that the Israeli government and the Israeli people are different.

[Christian Liberty]

There are some nuts out there that align themselves with the liberty movement. But that's a different discussion.


TC is the one who cares about this. I really don't. Although I am mildly annoyed by a handful of anarcho-capitalists that make other anarcho-capitalists look bad. For instance, Larken Rose brings up some important philosophical questions regarding when it is or isn't justified to respond to police aggression with lethal violence, but then you have guys like Chris Cantwell basically just saying its OK to kill cops, at any time. Mind you, this is kind of a different issue, and even then, I'm not going to say that those types of people (Cantwell and the like) aren't part of the liberty movement, I'll just say that they annoy me a fair chunk of the time.


At the end of the day, though, if we recall what our framers had mentioned, we send representatives to Washington to support us. It's not the other way around where some folks just blend in with the bad guys there and then go looking for support. Uh-uh. Nope. That's not how it's supposed to work. It's not about them. It's about us. It's why we send them.

The problem is that we like to do it the other way around and subsequently become selective with the us part. Not Israel. Us.


I get your point, but the reps don't represent "us". They never have. Statism and personal represenation cannot coexist, ever.

We need to remember that the Israeli government and the Israeli people are different.

So true.

[Feeding the Abscess]

We need to remember that the Israeli government and the Israeli people are different.

Right, but Rand rhetorically and politically supported sending not only the normal amount of yearly foreign aid to Israel's government, but supplemental additions as well. While stating that he was 'standing with Israel'.

[libertarianinternational]

2 words.

False. Flag.

[philipped]

2 words.

False. Flag.

Off.Rip.

[JohnM]

How and when it became compulsory for almost all US Presidential candidates to show their support for a foreign blowback generator country? Guess Rand has to drink water from same well where most other ambitious politicians are lined up.


Like when he told Hannity the other day that past U.S intervention is responsible for the rise of ISIS?

It seems to me that there is a slight tension in Rand Paul's position. I believe that past U.S intervention is indeed largely responsible for the rise of ISIS - and a lot of other blowback.

But the U.S. intervention that is responsible for this blowback consists largely in supporting Israel when Israel does things that infuriate a large proportion of the population of the Middle East.