Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 156

Thread: Rand introduces bill to defund Palestinian foreign aid

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    My point is that this is clearly a shrewd attempt to score some cheap political points by pandering to the worst elements in the Republican Party. If he authored a bill to withdraw foreign aid to every country (including his perennial BFF, Israel), I'd have boatloads of respect for that.
    And authoring the bill you suggest would gain exactly nothing, except the ill-will of a variety of lobbying groups.

    I don't understand why anyone is upset with what Rand is doing here, or anywhere, really. He looks to pander and to appeal to populist sentiment where doing so increasing liberty, decreases spending, cuts taxes, or does all of the above. In a Republic or a Democracy this is quite literally the ONLY way to enact change. If he were a dictator, sure, he could propose broad-sweeping changes and bring about everything you'd like to see. Alas, we do not have a king.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by rich34 View Post
    Yes and him introducing a bill to end all foreign aid, vs. ending aid to Israel's enemy have equally as much chance as actually passing.. However, by doing this, he can expose the members that are against it and cut off the future attack of Rand hates Israel argument that no doubt will be used against him. While he may not be flawless, he's playing as good of a game as you're ever going to see.
    You, and Rand, understand how to play chess. Those in this thread who are arguing with you don't even know what a checker is. In fact, I think they eat marbles.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Galileo Galilei View Post
    I stand with Rand. I stand with the United States. I do not stand with AIPAC.
    ^^^
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Amash (R) MI-3rd
    "Young people want a Republican Party that believes in limited government and economic freedom and individual liberty, but they want a party that also acts on it.”

    THE FUTURE OF THE GOP = R[∃vo˩]ution 2.0: Rand Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by NOVALibertarian View Post
    First they ignore you= Ron Paul, 2007-2008
    Then they laugh at you= Ron Paul, 2012
    Then they fight you= Rand Paul, 2014-2015
    And then you win= Rand Paul, November 8th, 2016

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by rich34 View Post
    By taking the route that Rand has taken this gives him the possibility of actually winning the presidency instead of simply being a "pure senator" that will never win the presidency. Again, I just hope Rand can hang onto his father's most hardcore supporters before the MSM can squash it before it's of any affect. Hang on guy's, don't fall for their divide and conquer tactics.
    Stand With Rand
    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Amash (R) MI-3rd
    "Young people want a Republican Party that believes in limited government and economic freedom and individual liberty, but they want a party that also acts on it.”

    THE FUTURE OF THE GOP = R[∃vo˩]ution 2.0: Rand Paul 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by NOVALibertarian View Post
    First they ignore you= Ron Paul, 2007-2008
    Then they laugh at you= Ron Paul, 2012
    Then they fight you= Rand Paul, 2014-2015
    And then you win= Rand Paul, November 8th, 2016

  6. #95
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I don't think Ron would support this bill.
    Despite some dense people around here that spin like Bill O'Reilly to try and justify inconsistency, this has nothing to do with being anti-Israel as much as they want to try and spin it that way. This has to do with looking at the reasons given for why we were attacked on 9/11, and Rand 100% ignoring that with this bill. This also, IMO, has to do with consistency, something that Rand is lacking on this issue of foreign aid.

    I'm not sure if Ron Paul would, or wouldn't, support this bill, but I can almost guarantee 100% that the more recent Congressman Ron Paul would never have voted in favor of more foreign aid to Israel for its Iron Dome project. BUT, if there is one reason Ron Paul would vote against this bill, without even reading it, it would be the very title of it, "
    Defend Israel...
    ", to which he would probably say Israel can defend itself, and he didn't even need to read the bill any further past its title to know why he was voting against it. It makes us less safe.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Because unless it ended ALL foreign aid he wouldn't support it. It has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-Israel. It's about foreign aid being Constitutional or not. Ron is a principled man; if this bill has language in it about keeping foreign aid going for Israel, I don't think he'd support it.

    Ron Paul supports removing foreign bases, do you think he wouldn't vote for removing just 1?
    Ron Paul opposes the wars, do you think he wouldn't vote to end 1?
    Ron Paul opposes several government agencies, do you think he wouldn't vote to end 1?


    What makes you think Ron Paul believes in all or nothing?



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    Despite some dense people around here that spin like Bill O'Reilly to try and justify inconsistency, this has nothing to do with being anti-Israel as much as they want to try and spin it that way. This has to do with looking at the reasons given for why we were attacked on 9/11, and Rand 100% ignoring that with this bill. This also, IMO, has to do with consistency, something that Rand is lacking on this issue of foreign aid.

    I'm not sure if Ron Paul would, or wouldn't, support this bill, but I can almost guarantee 100% that the more recent Congressman Ron Paul would never have voted in favor of more foreign aid to Israel for its Iron Dome project. BUT, if there is one reason Ron Paul would vote against this bill, without even reading it, it would be the very title of it, "
    Defend Israel...
    ", to which he would probably say Israel can defend itself, and he didn't even need to read the bill any further past its title to know why he was voting against it. It makes us less safe.

    This has nothing to do with your fetish, so stop being a broken record repeating the same thing over and over again because you are too (mod edit) to discuss the topic at hand.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    You honestly believe that? Does anyone on this site believe that? That's like saying he would not support ending the NSA without ending the CIA. Or that he would vote against pulling out of Iraq because we would still be in South Korea. I don't believe that for a minute. I don't buy that Ron would just vote against every cut to aid until a bill comes up eliminating it all.



    The bill only addresses Palestine. Foreign aid is wrong, period, we agree on that. I imagine Ron Paul would support a bill to end aid to any country. I for one would also cheer on a bill ending aid to Israel, regardless of whether it addressed Palestine in any way. Ending aid is good, period.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeman View Post
    Ron Paul supports removing foreign bases, do you think he wouldn't vote for removing just 1?
    Ron Paul opposes the wars, do you think he wouldn't vote to end 1?
    Ron Paul opposes several government agencies, do you think he wouldn't vote to end 1?


    What makes you think Ron Paul believes in all or nothing?
    No, that's not how I meant it. In that case, yes, I suppose Ron would support it. But if the bill has language that could be interpreted as keeping or increasing aid to Isreal, I'm saying then he would not.

  11. #99
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeman View Post
    This has nothing to do with your fetish, so stop being a broken record repeating the same thing over and over again because you are too (mod edit) to discuss the topic at hand.
    I'm sorry, what is my fetish? I addressed the topic at hand, even pasting words from the title of this bill in my response, "Defend Israel...". Those words alone, are probably enough of a reason Ron Paul would vote against this bill.

    So, while you continue to break the guidelines with your off-topic posts and personal attacks, try instead to address what I said. You didn't.

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    No, that's not how I meant it. In that case, yes, I suppose Ron would support it. But if the bill has language that could be interpreted as keeping or increasing aid to Isreal, I'm saying then he would not.
    You said you don't think he would support this particular bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    I don't think Ron would support this bill.
    I assume you have a reason to say that? what part specifically would be a deal breaker for Ron Paul? http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/DAV15028.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    You said you don't think he would support this particular bill.



    I assume you have a reason to say that? what part specifically would be a deal breaker for Ron Paul? http://www.paul.senate.gov/files/documents/DAV15028.pdf
    Thank you for providing the link to the actual bill. Having looked at it, I see no reason now that Ron might not support it.

  14. #102
    Why, why why, WHY WHY

    Do we always feel the need to caveat all statements about foreign aid with a "well, does this statement that you just made, does it apply to Israel?"

    What the $#@! is so special about Israel that all statements about foreign aid have to be two-part statements, one for Israel, and one for everyone else?
    I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States...When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank...You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!

    Andrew Jackson, 1834

  15. #103
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    Why, why why, WHY WHY

    Do we always feel the need to caveat all statements about foreign aid with a "well, does this statement that you just made, does it apply to Israel?"

    What the $#@! is so special about Israel that all statements about foreign aid have to be two-part statements, one for Israel, and one for everyone else?
    Well, the title of the bill has Israel in it, "This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defend Israel by Defunding Palestinian Foreign Aid Act of 2015’’."

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    I'm sorry, what is my fetish? I addressed the topic at hand, even pasting words from the title of this bill in my response, "Defend Israel...". Those words alone, are probably enough of a reason Ron Paul would vote against this bill.

    So, while you continue to break the guidelines with your off-topic posts and personal attacks, try instead to address what I said. You didn't.
    The bill has nothing to do with the Iron Dome, yet you brought it up because ??????? If you want to talk about that vote I'm sure there is already a thread about it where you can discuss it all you want.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    To prohibit assistance to the Palestinian Authority until it withdraws its
    request
    to join the International Criminal Court.
    That's the reason? So if they withdraw the request funds will flow?

    This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Defend Israel by
    5 Defunding Palestinian Foreign Aid Act of 2015’’.
    'nuff said.

    The United States Government must make
    immediately clear to the Palestinian Authority that
    its attempts to join the International Criminal Court
    will carry serious consequences.
    "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

    Gotta be kidding me that this is spun as an acceptable reason to stop funding.

  19. #106
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeman View Post
    The bill has nothing to do with the Iron Dome, yet you brought it up because ??????? If you want to talk about that vote I'm sure there is already a thread about it where you can discuss it all you want.
    Because Rand said he approved of those funds for the Iron Dome and it has to do with this bill because it shows he is either ignorant of the reasons given why were attacked on 9/11, or he is ignoring those reasons despite knowing them. If he is starting with cutting foreign aid, he should start with countries that knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, and didn't warn us.

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    That's the reason? So if they withdraw the request funds will flow?



    'nuff said.



    "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

    Gotta be kidding me that this is spun as an acceptable reason to stop funding.
    Any reason is an acceptable reason to stop funding. Or do you support foreign aid?

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by jjdoyle View Post
    Because Rand said he approved of those funds for the Iron Dome and it has to do with this bill because it shows he is either ignorant of the reasons given why were attacked on 9/11, or he is ignoring those reasons despite knowing them. If he is starting with cutting foreign aid, he should start with countries that knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, and didn't warn us.
    This isn't the first time he tried to end foreign aid for a particular nation and again this bill has nothing to do with the Iron Dome, you are the only one making that connection.

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by cajuncocoa View Post
    Thank you for providing the link to the actual bill. Having looked at it, I see no reason now that Ron might not support it.
    Thanks! Just FYI Collins had it linked in his OP, but it was not an obvious link. Just blue letters, so I can see why you missed it.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  23. #110
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeman View Post
    This isn't the first time he tried to end foreign aid for a particular nation and again this bill has nothing to do with the Iron Dome, you are the only one making that connection.
    So, why are you asking people if they support foreign aid, when Rand does? If this is ONLY about Palestine, then why did Rand put Israel's name in it? Oh, right....pandering propaganda that won't matter a hill of beans.

    Rand Paul does support foreign aid, and he does it to a country that makes us less safe in doing so. It has nothing to do with being anti-Israel, but everything to do with keeping the country safe. Rand Paul apparently even supports foreign aid to Palestine, as long as they don't try to join the ICC. So, Rand supports foreign aid, just on his terms to certain people.

    This bill has Israel in its title. Have you not read the reasons given why they attacked us on 9/11? Clearly Rand Paul hasn't or doesn't care and ignores it as his/our own risk.

  24. #111
    I'm pretty sure banging my head against a wall would be more productive than continuing this discussion. It is clear you are incapable of discussing the topic at hand without derailing it.

  25. #112
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeman View Post
    I'm pretty sure banging my head against a wall would be more productive than continuing this discussion. It is clear you are incapable of discussing the topic at hand without derailing it.
    Nothing is derailed, other than your off topic posts (like this one) and ones that can't/don't answer basic questions. Have you read the reasons given why "they" attacked us on 9/11?

    Rand Paul included Israel in the short title of this bill, specifically, "Defend Israel...". His bill will allow aid to continue to Palestine, if they meet HIS requirements. So, Rand Paul is apparently for foreign aid under his own terms and conditions applied to only one people group in this very bill? Because of his own entangling alliance with Israel? Why else have Israel's name in it?

    Maybe Rand Paul was against foreign aid, before he was for it...kind of the opposite of John Kerry in 2004?

    But, considering you're pretty sure banging your head against a wall would be more productive than your continuing spinning low information posts and not answering basic questions in this thread, I think we now know that confirms you are what you accused others of being in this thread....



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    Why, why why, WHY WHY

    What the $#@! is so special about Israel that all statements about foreign aid have to be two-part statements, one for Israel, and one for everyone else?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeman View Post
    Any reason is an acceptable reason to stop funding. Or do you support foreign aid?
    No. It is not. To stop funding over entangling alliances is as bad as funding over entangling alliances. Perceptions create enemies.

  29. #115


    You people need to get a grip. You are living in a fantasy world of wrong choices and fake trojan horses, bogus foreign policy and aid funding issues. People will die and children carry horrid scars for life because of vagaries of argument in regards to the subtleties of some bill or other being passed that you heatedly debate as though you were deciding on chocolate or vanilla with your all american apple pie. There are two or three actually sane and humane people on this thread. The rest have your heads up your asses from pretzeling your morals to make excuses..any excuse..and are sucked into the political whirlwind, blinded by metaphors and silly policy distinctions.. I was Ron Paul grassroots whip in 2008 and 2012. I will not lift a finger for this zionist shill Rand. I hope the Palestinians take the bloody anti-semites of Israel before an international court before they all run to their homeland in Ukraine. You will be the only ones looking at your coffin lid on that final day...The day of your judgment by your higher self. May your souls rest easy...should you find you way back out of the political matrix and back into the soul of a living and breathing sovereign human who values the human race...all of it. I know mine will because i am consistent in my defense of those needing it. Watch this video above and know you are complicit with your pretzel logic.

    Rev9
    Drain the swamp - BIG DOG
    http://mindreleaselabs.com/
    Seeking work on Apps, Games, Art based projects

  30. #116

  31. #117
    The bills that Ron opposed that were good on the surface were bills that had a heck of a lot of pork underneath. In this case if the bill is strictly dealing with cutting aid to a foreign entity without increasing much spending elsewhere, there's no reason in my mind to believe that he wouldn't support such a bill. Even if the bill ensures existing funding to one entity, but didn't increase the overall budget I still think he would support it. Of course I can't speak with him, but he was strongly consistent in his approach and based off that I think it gives one a pretty good idea of how he may or may not vote on any particular bill.

  32. #118
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,489
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Quote Originally Posted by rich34 View Post
    The bills that Ron opposed that were good on the surface were bills that had a heck of a lot of pork underneath. In this case if the bill is strictly dealing with cutting aid to a foreign entity without increasing much spending elsewhere, there's no reason in my mind to believe that he wouldn't support such a bill. Even if the bill ensures existing funding to one entity, but didn't increase the overall budget I still think he would support it. Of course I can't speak with him, but he was strongly consistent in his approach and based off that I think it gives one a pretty good idea of how he may or may not vote on any particular bill.
    Actually, Ron would add earmarks or pork to many of the bills himself, but still vote against them.
    But, the problem is that in this case the bill isn't simply dealing with cutting foreign aid, but attaching "Do as I say" to the foreign aid. Ron wasn't much for telling other countries what they could do, so I can say that he would most likely vote against this bill. Based on his record.

    If the bill was a straight up/down "Stop foreign aid to Palestine, because we can't afford it." He might vote yes. This isn't that though.

  33. #119
    it places conditions on the foreign aid, which means that then foreign aid is ok? still, the bill should be supported. but it's a bad bill, it is pandering to Israel in a shameless way. if Schumer had introduced it, then sure vote yes. but to sponsor it is not good.

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    No. It is not. To stop funding over entangling alliances is as bad as funding over entangling alliances. Perceptions create enemies.
    Eh I disagree, if you're accomplishing something good for the wrong reasons you're still accomplishing something good.

    NYPD protest is a good example.
    Last edited by Rudeman; 01-09-2015 at 03:32 AM.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-28-2015, 08:01 PM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-12-2014, 12:34 PM
  3. Rep. Poe (R-Tex.) Introduces Bill to End Foreign Aid to Pakistan
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-14-2011, 12:57 PM
  4. GOP Congressman introduces amendment to defund Obama's Teleprompter
    By low preference guy in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-16-2011, 11:19 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-23-2009, 02:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •