Explanation of Rand Paul's Vote For Iran Sanctions

[centure7]

I don't support sanctions either, but I can't believe people are going this crazy over one issue. Do you really have to agree with a politician on every single issue in order to support him or her? Is there anyone here who actually agrees with Ron on every single issue? Rand has been very vocally opposed to the Patriot Act, The NDAA, authored bills to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, has supported ending all foreign aid and reducing our military presence overseas, and recently he took a bold stand and blocked two bills that ban "recreational drugs." That's certainly good enough for me.

Demanding an explanation for a bad vote is "going crazy"? I want to Rand Paul to be a Michael Jordan of politics, not a Scottie Pippen.

[centure7]

what proof does the Senate have for any of the items listed in this section? Especially procuring nuclear weapons?

Don't know. I'll research that question before contacting Paul's campaign office.

[centure7]

(continued from page 6)

(D) EXCEPTION.--Sanctions imposed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a foreign financial institution if the President determines and reports to Congress, not later than 90 days after the date on which the President makes the determination required by subparagraph (B), and every 180 days thereafter, that the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its volume of crude oil purchases from Iran during the period beginning on the date on which the President submitted the last report with respect to the country under this subparagraph.

The God King Obama will determine weather foreign bankers must follow this US law every 180 days. We'll see how much they donate to the messiah's campaigns and figure it out from there.

(5) WAIVER.--The President may waive the imposition of sanctions under paragraph (1) 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 Congress a report--

(i) providing a justification for the waiver; and

(ii) that includes any concrete cooperation the President has received or expects to receive as a result of the waiver.

Just like with any law, our God King Obama may waive the law at his great will. To do this he simply must file a report detailing his reasoning every 120 days when he may renew the waiver. It will say something like "because I said so" or something like that.

(e) Multilateral Diplomacy Initiative.--

By writing the phrase "Multilateral Diplomacy Initiative" I sound smart and justify a $300 per hour wage, all the while pretend to be diplomatic to Iran. Its win-win for all but the peasant class.

(1) IN GENERAL.--The President shall--

(A) carry out an initiative of multilateral diplomacy to persuade countries purchasing oil from Iran--

(i) to limit the use by Iran of revenue from purchases of oil to purchases of non-luxury consumers goods from the country purchasing the oil; and

Running just Americans lives gets boring. Lets figure out what *Iranians* should and shouldn't be buying halfway around the world. Iranians should not be buying incredibly cool things like sports cars or jewelry. Too greedy... sounds like capitalism. Lets say that they want Levis jeans or American pot pies... the voices in my head say these are good for Iranians. So, how do we get them to shop right? Legions of diplomats should be sent overseas to spend our wealth encouraging other countries to levy all kinds of oil-trade based threats against Iranians.

(ii) to prohibit purchases by Iran of--

(I) military or dual-use technology, including items--

(aa) in the Annex to the to the Missile Technology Control Regime Guidelines;

(bb) in the Annex on Chemicals to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, done at Paris January 13, 1993, and entered into force April 29, 1997 (commonly known as the ``Chemical Weapons Convention'');

(cc) in Part 1 or 2 of the Nuclear Suppliers Group Guidelines; or

(dd) on a control list of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies; or

(II) any other item that could contribute to Iran's conventional, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons program; and

(B) conduct outreach to petroleum-producing countries to encourage those countries to increase their output of crude oil to ensure there is a sufficient supply of crude oil from countries other than Iran and to minimize any impact on the price of oil resulting from the imposition of sanctions under this section.

It would be silly if we only banned sports cars and valentines chocolate boxes from Iran. Lets also ban incredibly scary things I could come up with. The scariest stuff I though up is: Stuff that the military might be able to use, Nuclear Weapons, Missles, anything on a variety of weapons lists, items for nuclear weapons, stuff the military might be able to use, items for biological weapons, stuff the military might be able to use, and conventional weapons. Now you're thinking gee, since you started off listing "stuff the military might be able to use" why did you pointlessly repeat your self by listing off all that other stuff. Hey, stop thinking so damn hard and just pay your taxes so I get $300 to repeat myself over and over again, okay?

(2) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the efforts of the President to carry out the initiative described in paragraph (1)(A) and conduct the outreach described in paragraph (1)(B) and the results of those efforts.

(f) Form of Reports.--Each report submitted under this section shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.

(g) Definitions.--In this section:

OMG all this paperwork! Okay I get a fat-ass pension to push pencils all day so I'm happy after thinking about it. I'll just get up and walk around when I start falling asleep. Every 180 days a report will be written detailing our progress. If we fail, and we will, we'll need more money to try harder with the sanctions. But if we succeed by dumb luck like if oil becomes obsolete overnight, we'll need even more money because it will be proven an effective way of spending money. Also, stuff in the report may be classified because Obama loves transparency but needs lots of stuff classified.

------------------------

Tomorrow I'll summarize and figure out the rest of the legislation. Not much is left. So far, so bad.

[anaconda]

Don't know. I'll research that question before contacting Paul's campaign office.

See my post #85 in the thread. The Congress and the U.N. should be ashamed if this is their source of information.

[centure7]

See my post #85 in the thread. The Congress and the U.N. should be ashamed if this is their source of information.

No wonder the word "emergency" is found in the amendment so many times. This information was from 2005, so they are declaring an an Emergency(tm) while the information is fresh only seven years later. Good thing Obama has powers to put our rights on the backburner during The Emergencies(tm) or we'd all be dead because the president of Iran would have nuked all of us.

[Traditional Conservative]

Demanding an explanation for a bad vote is "going crazy"? I want to Rand Paul to be a Michael Jordan of politics, not a Scottie Pippen.

I didn't say that simply "demanding an explanation" was "going crazy". But there's some people who say that they can't support Rand because they disagree with this one vote, even though they may agree with 99 of his other votes. That seems a bit ridiculous to me.

[bluesc]

I didn't say that simply "demanding an explanation" was "going crazy". But there's some people who say that they can't support Rand because they disagree with this one vote, even though they may agree with 99 of his other votes. That seems a bit ridiculous to me.

You can't weigh based on the number of votes.

You can vote against one thousand spending bills yet one vote to allow police to execute anyone they like would cancel that out and then some.

This one vote means that Rand supports sanctions. That has much bigger implications (anti-free trade, killing of innocents, etc)

[ryanmkeisling]

You can't weigh based on the number of votes.

You can vote against one thousand spending bills yet one vote to allow police to execute anyone they like would cancel that out and then some.

This one vote means that Rand supports sanctions. That has much bigger implications (anti-free trade, killing of innocents, etc)

This. The vote means that innocent human life is less important to Rand then political expediency or his personal future which is not an admirable quality we should be supporting in any of our politicians.

Tolerance of war, murder of innocents and the wholesale bargaining of our freedoms for supposed safety and protection by a centralized authority, has gotten us to where we stand today. We have allowed these governments to do all sorts of bad in our lives and it is time for that to change. It starts with making sure our politicians behave in a civilized manner.

The vote for sanctions by Rand is dangerous and should make him suspicious to any patriot and lover of freedom. Just because that is how things have been done doesn't make it right, in fact from what we know today we know we should behave differently. There are some of us who see Rand is not ready to realize this and he will lose support for it. I will not be voting for him in a presidential race unless he is ready to explain why he voted for this, publicly and even then he is going to have trouble validating it, IMHO.

[centure7]

But there's some people who say that they can't support Rand because they disagree with this one vote, even though they may agree with 99 of his other votes. That seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Okay, I misunderstood what you are saying. If someone likes everything Paul is doing but that one bill, and dropped their support over it, that seems like a bad decision. I wouldn't go so far as to call it ridiculous.

I think sanctions are pretty bad mistakes.

[JJ2]

This. The vote means that innocent human life is less important to Rand then political expediency or his personal future which is not an admirable quality we should be supporting in any of our politicians.

What about Ron voting for the Afghanistan war?