Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 90

Thread: Sen. Rand Paul Blocks New Iran Sanctions

  1. #31
    Is there even a remote chance that anyone will live up to what we expect of Ron?

    Quote Originally Posted by kuckfeynes View Post
    I like Rand, I really do, and who knows, maybe he'll be the real agent of change we've been looking for... But he'll never be able to stand up and claim consistency like Ron.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Didn't Rand vote in favor of the sanctions to begin with...



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by DonovanJames View Post
    Didn't Rand vote in favor of the sanctions to begin with...
    Yeah thats what I thought at first. It seems like he's channeling more of his father now
    "Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul with a heart, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul"

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by RickyJ View Post
    The first sanctions he voted for are bad enough.
    Maybe he's changing his mind? Up until 8 months ago, I would have been A-OK with all sanctions.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by DonovanJames View Post
    Didn't Rand vote in favor of the sanctions to begin with...
    This is a new round of sanctions. The first sanction dealt with the Central Bank of Iran.

    This sanction is farther reaching. You can see the effects here:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4315994

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    But.. But.. But.. He's really bad and stuff!
    I am the spoon.

  9. #37
    But if the sanctions actually came to the floor for a vote, would Rand vote for the sanctions? He voted in favor of the first round of sanctions.

  10. #38
    Go Rand!
    "Paper money has the effect to ruin commerce,oppress the honest, and open the door to every species of fraud and injustice"

    ~GEORGE WASHINGTON

  11. #39

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by sgt150 View Post
    I think that it's better that Rand is a little more compromising than his father. It makes our movement more effective than having two Ron's
    I fully agree.
    I am the spoon.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    I think that Rand is trying too hard to please everyone, and by doing that, ends up pleasing no one. I think he needs to either pick one side or the other. The neo-cons are never going to like Rand unless he comes out in support of all out war with Iran. He's not going to get any credit from them for voting for the first round of sanctions. They'll be just as much against Rand as they were against Ron when Rand actually runs for President.

  15. #42
    Reasonable and rational. Go Rand! The rubber is hitting the road, and Rand is ensuring that everything is above board and Constitutional.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    I think that Rand is trying too hard to please everyone, and by doing that, ends up pleasing no one. I think he needs to either pick one side or the other. The neo-cons are never going to like Rand unless he comes out in support of all out war with Iran. He's not going to get any credit from them for voting for the first round of sanctions. They'll be just as much against Rand as they were against Ron when Rand actually runs for President.
    Neocons are an endangered species. Social conservatives and traditional conservatives such as yourself may be more warmongering than Ron who is staunchly anti-war, but they're not as bloodthirsty as the neocons. Neocons only have dominated the party because they dominate the mainstream media. The mainstream media is dying now, along with their empire. Their days are numbered, and Rand can frame Ron's anti-war talking points in a way that is more palatable for regular conservatives.

  17. #44
    I was just going to post this...
    beat me to it

  18. #45
    Great job Rand! Rand is the future.
    Last edited by rockerrockstar; 03-27-2012 at 09:51 PM.

  19. #46
    Future President.
    "I am, therefore I'll think" - Ayn Rand

  20. #47

    Rand Paul kills ramp up of Iran sanctions bill -- at least for now

    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  21. #48
    +rep to Rand
    Delegates Matter MORE than the Popular Vote Find Out Why

    2012 GOP Nominating Process (Demystified)

    "The true danger is when Liberty is nibbled away, for expedients and by parts.... The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men do nothing."
    CVRP connecting the troops, and those who support them, to grassroots action. Join Us



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49

  24. #50
    Good news and a new site for me to peruse, cool. As you say though, for now...........the war pigs aren't going away.

  25. #51
    Good glad to know there are some good people still in Washington when paul is gone.

  26. #52
    A good person raises good children (for the most part). I am sure Carol and Ron raised their children and grandchildren the best they can with good values.

    I have some reserved confidence that Rand will be a great senator and possible future president. At any rate, it is a good start for getting people to like him again. A lot of people got turned off with Rand when he wanted to impose sanctions on Iran.

  27. #53
    He wasn't trying to stop the sanctions from ramping up.

    He just "accidentally" killed the bill because they refused to even "consider" his amendment which said that the bill could not be construed as authorizing war in Iran or Syria! Even when he comes up with the most "mild/reasonable" bills or amendments, they won't even consider them. It's insane.

    I wonder if he really expected them to object!

    EDIT: It looks like the story made it to Politico: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...ll-118887.html

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who tried to quickly pass the measure on Tuesday, protested Paul's decision to stand in the way.

    "I really am terribly disappointed," Reid said on the floor. "There's nothing in the resolution that talks about war. In fact, it's quite to the contrary. ... I read the Constitution a few times. My friend says he wants to restate the Constitution. That's a strange version he just stated."

    Reid now can decide to file cloture to overcome the senator's objection with 60 votes, or he can cut a deal and allow the Paul amendment to be considered by the body.
    I bet what Sen. Paul is doing is that he does not expect anyone to construe the bill as authorizing war, but since he has seen that Obama will go to war without any legislation (Libya), he is trying to preemptively deny Obama any authority to go to war in Iran or Syria (notice that the bill doesn't even have anything to do with Syria ).

    WOW! I just realized how clever this is!
    Last edited by JJ2; 03-28-2012 at 03:32 AM.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ2 View Post
    ...
    WOW! I just realized how clever this is!

    (Reuters) - A U.S. Republican lawmaker on Tuesday blocked Democrats from passing legislation designed to further punish Iran for developing its nuclear program, and each side blamed the other for its failure in a presidential election year that will put extra scrutiny on President Barack Obama to be tough on Tehran. The legislation, which had the backing of many Democratic and Republican Senators, focused on foreign banks that handle transactions for Iran's national oil and tanker companies...Senator Rand Paul formally objected to taking up the legislation unless the Senate would also consider his amendment to it saying that nothing in the bill could be construed as an authorization of war against Iran or Syria. This effectively blocked the bill from advancing. The timing of the next step was not immediately clear.
    No one here wanted to be the Billionaire.

  29. #55
    I'm sure the Rand haters will still find something to be mad about
    "Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by JJ2 View Post
    He wasn't trying to stop the sanctions from ramping up.

    He just "accidentally" killed the bill because they refused to even "consider" his amendment which said that the bill could not be construed as authorizing war in Iran or Syria! Even when he comes up with the most "mild/reasonable" bills or amendments, they won't even consider them. It's insane.

    I wonder if he really expected them to object!

    EDIT: It looks like the story made it to Politico: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...ll-118887.html



    I bet what Sen. Paul is doing is that he does not expect anyone to construe the bill as authorizing war, but since he has seen that Obama will got to war without any legislation (Libya), he is trying to preemptively deny Obama any authority to go to war in Iran or Syria (notice that the bill doesn't even have anything to do with Syria ).

    WOW! I just realized how clever this is!
    that was how I read it too. Ron had done that in a prior authorization for funding bill, gotten an amendment in (years ago) that the 'authorization of force' in Afghanistan was clarified to say it did not authorize force anywhere else but Pelosi got it killed in conference. I'm sure Rand knew what he was doing.
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    You guys do understand that he just prevented us from going to war don't you?

    The whitehouse and Bama would have ran with it and acted like they had authority to go to war.

    Going to war is a big problem now because of what Ron Paul has been doing in the campaign, telling EVERYONE over and over that you can't go to war without out congress's approval. A lot of people didn't know that simple fact, now they do.

    So now Bama has to do it right but yet they still try to sneak it through the back door.

    Maybe later they might say this didn't actually give any authority, but then their excuse would be "we thought it did" and by that time we are already over there with troops and "pulling out now would cost lives" etc... and etc.... and so on....

    We have seen this before.

    So this is much bigger than you think. The guy is a super hero!

    Ron Paul is also a hero for pushing his views and educating the general (ignorant) public.

    Now we have to hope they are waking up to the federal reserve scam.

  33. #58
    Now let's see if he actually sticks to a position and runs with it (he votes for sanctions but then comes out against them...)

  34. #59

    Thumbs up

    New video by Jack Hunter:
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    I think that Rand is trying too hard to please everyone, and by doing that, ends up pleasing no one. I think he needs to either pick one side or the other. The neo-cons are never going to like Rand unless he comes out in support of all out war with Iran. He's not going to get any credit from them for voting for the first round of sanctions. They'll be just as much against Rand as they were against Ron when Rand actually runs for President.
    Maybe he's not trying to "please" anyone and is just doing his best to follow the Constitution and do what's best for the country?


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Does Rand Paul support the new Iran sanctions?
    By Anti-Neocon in forum Rand Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 01-11-2014, 03:58 PM
  2. Rand Paul voted for Iran sanctions?
    By AminCad in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 151
    Last Post: 08-12-2012, 02:48 PM
  3. Explanation of Rand Paul's Vote For Iran Sanctions
    By centure7 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: 05-26-2012, 11:32 AM
  4. Rand Paul Blocks Iran Sanctions Bill
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-28-2012, 09:23 PM
  5. Rand Paul votes for sanctions against Iran??
    By Created4 in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-01-2011, 11:26 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
  •