45 votes

Senate Votes To Tighten Sanctions On Iran - Rand Paul Votes Yes 11/30/12


Not one single no vote.

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress - 2nd Session
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3232 to S. 3254 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013)
Statement of Purpose: To enhance sanctions imposed with respect to Iran.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rand "playin' the game" Paul...

can keep his "power."

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Patrick Henry. A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for Mitt Romney.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Brother Winston

I am slow. But I am also thorough. As I stated yesterday, bulldozers are slow too, but they are guaranteed to get the job done.

You may be wrong about Rand. You may be right. In the back of my mind as well as the front, Justin Amash is on the horizon. But word must spread now that he is :-)

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

How do you know they have the

How do you know they have the same ideas when Rand is pushing for hostilities in the middle east? This is not "reform vs end" the fed, a reasonable debate, this is interventionist foreign policy vs non-interventionist.

Ventura 2012

Rand is stupid

First, he alienates everyone by endorsing Mittens, who then loses. This shows he is stupid.
Then, he places himself on the wrong side of history with Iran for a political calculation.
My problem is that he is stupid. His methods won't work.

how to regard rand paul

lew rockwell, like Benedict

lew rockwell, like Benedict Arnold, is a traitor to the pro-liberty movement. As far as I am concerned, rockwell has seceded from the movement.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

this is a pretty pathetic

this is a pretty pathetic comment .. lol let's attack lew rockwell now .. lol what the hell are you people smoking?

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

not to mention

that the piece isn't even written by rockwell. sometimes i think i'm at the huffington post here!

Ron Paul's son

from your article: "At the same time, I don't understand the visceral hatred for him that is held by many Ron Paul followers. They seem to have even more hatred for Rand Paul than for far worse politicians like Orrin Hatch, for example."

true, but

the article says a lot more about rand than that.

& we're not having hatch shoved down our throats everyday at DP

Marcus Tullius Cicero -

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

everyone who is incredibly

everyone who is incredibly emotionally charged because of Rand Paul taking charge of his own role in this libertarian fight ... really needs to calm the hell down and stfu. yeah we get your disappointments about how much you love ron paul and how there will never be another one. we heard it 1,000 times. you guys aren't stupid ... but you are incredibly emotional ... and acting emotionally and not using your head is a problem. The bottom line is that what Rand is doing is working ... whether you like it or not.

Consider this:

There has been much criticism of Rand Paul since his endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 election. While many have raised some great points, I think some people are missing the forest for the tree. What is going on with Rand Paul is incredibly clear to anyone paying attention in the liberty movement. And if I end up being wrong in the end, it would have affected nothing negatively. If Rand did not hold that Senate seat, it would have been occupied by a lockstep interchangeable neocon advancing more assaults on our liberties. That fact cannot be denied.

So apart from your disappointments with Rand endorsing the GOP nominee, even though he said he would, and a handful of legislative actions that may not make libertarians feel all warm and fuzzy inside, you don't have much to complain about. If you are in the liberty movement already, you probably don't need to be told the truth anymore. You already have it ingrained in yourself to search for the truth and to hold your own views whether popular or not. It is incredibly fucking easy to listen to Rand Paul and know when he is feeding the crowd red meat by telling half truths, and when he is telling the whole truth. And the fact that you can recognize this already enough to bitch about Rand is evidence of that.

The fact of the matter is that Rand is not trying to acquire your vote. He already has the majority of the liberty movement, whether you believe so or not. Rand is going after the mainstream fucking idiot republican vote. And it's working! These same idiots he is going after are on facebook proclaiming how fucking sexy Rand's curly hair is. You are going to get mad at him for employing a wise strategy of target marketing? You obviously don't understand how business works. Such a strategy will at least push these people in the right direction and get them thinking. You can't scream someone into becoming a libertarian, believe me I've tried.

So the question becomes: What of this strategy? Are you sacrificing your principles and beliefs by employing an insurgent political strategy? Is this possible? These fascists, neocons, big government republicans, and authoritarians have used this same strategy forever and it has worked. Almost NONE of these people that run for office on the mantle of a libertarian minded message of limited constitutional government, civil liberties, economic freedom, and free market capitalism ever believed in any of these things in the first place. They said and did whatever they had to do to get elected, and that they did. Once in office, they consistently act against what they ran on, and you know it.

So is it possible for someone who believes in liberty to use that same strategy to acquire votes, and then advance his real philosophy? Of course, and anyone who denies this fundamental fact, still hasn't gotten over themselves yet. So grow the fuck up already. If you don't believe in electoral politics, then stop bitching at people on your side who are moving the same message forward through means other than yours. I see this all the time. One person who makes signs or does street action yelling at another person who wants to use his time to do something else. A radio host/blogger chastising people trying to get a particular liberty candidate elected, because of the particular party they choose to work within. Be fucking civil, and don't forget to use the word fuck a lot. The clear answer to whether this strategy can work is yes. Feel free to leave your comments below. They are always welcome.

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

... or... to compress a couple of rambling paraghraphs...

..."better evil." Right?

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

funny that you think writing

funny that you think writing or discussing things is rambling ... you present no argument .. therefore your comment is rather weak

i don't see you arguing with the facts that are clearly evident here.

it is possible to play the game just as the neocons do ... and advance liberty when assuming power ... stop pretending that it isn't

All paper money eventually returns to its real intrinsic value, zero. - Voltaire

You're comment is beautifully written...

...however I think it gets slightly distracting having all you cuss words with a big red letter and a space...just saying.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016



Anyone who felt betrayed has

Anyone who felt betrayed has only themselves to blame. This is not the first time Rand disappoints. He never claim to be philosophically aligned with his father. In fact, he said many times he wasn't. If you are so drawn by the last name that you refuse to see Rand for who he is, it's your own fault.

I was baffled that people saw fit to dump millions into Rand's senate campaign, but liberty champions like Lawson, Dennis, Kokesh, Medina struggle to get table scraps from the "freedom" community. We claim to be independent thinkers but we can't get beyond a last name?! Rand 2016?... That's all ya got? Really? WTF!

Why didn't he just abstain

Why didn't he just abstain and not vote at all.

He probably did abstain, but

He probably did abstain, but that is lost on the haters here. I doubt there was an actual vote held. What Rand did is the same as if Ron was out campaigning and missed a vote.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

I posted the roll call. Rand did not abstain.

It's all right there on the second link in black and white who voted yes and who abstained.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

They list people in the roll

They list people in the roll call as voting even when their is no actual vote.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

And then after the pretend vote

They brought out their Easy Bake Ovens® and baked Carol Pauls Chocolate Chip Cookies and everyone was happy.

Cream: 1 cup Crisco; 1 cup granulated sugar; 1 cup brown sugar; 2 eggs; 1 tsp. vanilla (It is important to put the vanilla in now.)

Dissolve: 1 tsp. baking soda in 1 tbsp. hot water and mix alternately with:

2 1/4 cups flour; 1 tsp. salt; 1 cup chopped nuts; 1 large bag chocolate chips

Drop by teaspoon on cookie sheet. Bake at 350 for 10 minutes.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Would it matter to the haters if...?

Here's something I hope people consider.

Hypothetical: What if he would have voted against sanctions if there were more people willing to vote against it (in other words have some good come out of his lose of political capital)? Since no one was interested in fighting sanctions, he figured that his vote wouldn't matter.

Hypothetical: Rand Paul is picking his fights. Instead of taking on every special interest and everything he doesn't like, he's focusing on the ones he feels are the most important: civil liberties, curbing regulation, lower spending, entitlement reform, ending the Fed, and winding down the interventionism. A very tall order already. What if he's just picking his fights on ones he thinks are most important ones?

Hypothetical: What if he simply doesn't believes that sanctions are an act of war so much as mercantile, which is a lesser evil?

I've heard him openly promote (without naming) the Realpolitik school of thought in foreign policy. Realpolitik doesn't recognize sanctions as effective. It suggests peace is best accomplished by unilateral free trade and disarmerment (at least of centrally controlled armies.) In other words, less armies and no bases around the world. Instead, have nukes to deter nuclear strikes, a strong navy to protect shipping lanes, and an air force to strike military targets of any invading country. Standing armies should only be strong enough to repel attack. This encourages non-belligerent countries to build their military power up less or disarm themselves. Realpolitik also suggests that countries not announce their foreign policy plans and to be as vague and mysterious as possible so that countries don't box themselves in. It also warns against entangling alliances and blames alliance rigidity for World War I. He has not openly discussed the part about disarmerment or entangling alliances, but I suspect he may actually believe in it since he's endorsed other parts of Realpolitik.

1,000,000 dead in Iraq due to sanctions.

What do you call THAT? Imagine if you and your family were sanctioned from grocery stores. Would you just accept it? Do you even understand the depth of the argument you are making?

Iran Sanctions, Rand Paul, Ron Paul Round Infinity

When Will This Controversy Cease? The Daily Paul goes back and forth on Iran since 2007.

First, leave Ron Paul out of this political debate. We all know that Ron Paul would have voted nay on the Iran sanctions. Ron Paul is retiring from the US Congress and will be active outside its walls. We continue to rehash the same old talking points or arguments when speaking on the nation state of Iran. Why do we continue to ignore the reality of life inside Iran today? How do we know that Iran is not going to obtain nuclear weapons? Okay, Iran did not obtain nuclear weapons in 1979, 1990, or 2012, so I guess the Iranian leadership will never achieve nuclear weapon status. We should not support the status quo in Iran and aide these citizens ability to alter their government.

Arguing what occurred in 1953 or in the 1970s, in Iran does not alter the fact the ruling class is extreme. Daily Paulers act like everyone in Iran is so peaceful. Second, we all know that Rand Paul is vote for sanctions against Iran. A few or a large minority forget the mass killing of protesters during the Green Revolution in Iran. Daily Paul should not support the current theocracy in Iran in power since 1979.

Third, we should all point out that the Obama Administration did not support the protesters in 2009 and it was violently crushed. I grow sick of infighting of one or two votes on Iran Sanctions. If you do not want to support the minority of Iranians or majority of Iranians living in the major cities, so be it. Rand Paul is voting for sanctions to support the citizens of who oppose the Theocracy. Yes, sanctions are the lightest form of an act of war against the Iranian mullahs. I fully support Rand Paul as well as his vote on Iranian sanctions.

The liberty movement in the United States should at least privately support other freedom movement across the globe. Many individuals on the Daily Paul will stand on the extreme position of non intervention in every case. Name calling neo con, bilderberg, warmongers, or chicken hawk is not a real case against aiding the citizens of Iran. No funds, no diplomatic support, no sanctions, no moral support, or absolutely nothing is the incorrect side of this issue.

Im AMAZED at how many neocon

Im AMAZED at how many neocon trolls we get these days. Some of them are sleepers like this guy. No one would have dared post something like this 4 years ago.

Ventura 2012

There you go

name calling instead of debating.

Read the thread, see if I

Read the thread, see if I debate.

Ventura 2012

Will4liberty if I read you

Will4liberty if I read you correctly you are saying kill everyone and let God sort them out -- or something similar, in the name of liberty (80 percent casualties in war are innocent civilians). I heard the same garbage during the Vietnam war when the battle cry was kill them all to prevent the whole world from going communist (domino theory). We lost over 50 thousand troops in that war and killed thousands of innocent civilians -- men, women, and children. Ron Paul said that the sanctions placed on Iran are an act of war. Who in hell made us boss of the world where we can dictate at will and tell the world what they can and cannot do? God help us if we ever lose our military superiority -- there will be no mercy. Our country is bankrupt so one can only guess at when that day will come. It may be sooner than you think.

Even if Iran had nuclear weapons

What right is it of ours to tell them they can't have them? More policing of the world.

Well said will4liberty...

that is, if you are Bill Kristol and blogging for the Weekly Standard. Are you effing kidding me with that BS you wrote?! Wrong site.

and yeah, if you are trolling to piss people off it worked.