45 votes

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

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-votes-tighten-sanctions-iran-15...

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.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...




Comment viewing options

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

Cliche tripe cliche cliche...

...tripe tripe cliche tripe.

That and a dollar'll get you something from the dollar menu.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Gandhi was cliche, yup, you

Gandhi was cliche, yup, you are correct .... You on the other hand, very, very good joke about the dollar menu, not cliche at all and totally proves your point, way to go!

What did they do Ron Paul? They ignored him, ridiculed, fought, and then, in my eyes, he won. He won more than an election. Rand will never win working with Criminals and acting as if they will work with him. Go ahead and support what you believe, but just know that you are advocating the use of the violence, oppression, war crimes, political bribery, playing dirty cheap tricks, and the epitome of what IS the status quo. Way to go fighting for peace and freedom.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

If he honestly believed what

If he honestly believed what he was saying he would never post this stuff here because he would be "giving away" Rand Paul's Super Secret Plan that NO ONE will EVER see coming.

http://www.dailypaul.com/264882/rand-paul-and-gorbachev

Ventura 2012

I find it amusing...

...how you call it a "super secret plan," so as to make it sound absurd and improbable, when, in fact, what you're describing is simply the reality of politics. Ron Paul spoiled us all by his purity. He caused many of you to misunderstand what a politician is and what politics is. For the purpose of this conversation, Ron was not a politician. He was a guy spreading the message, using politics as a platform. Rand, however, is a politician. Ron and Rand are engaged in different tasks. Expecting Rand to follow Ron's methods is like expecting a plumber to use the tools of a carpenter, makes no sense at all. They are trying to do different things: Ron to educate, Rand to win.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

How is this the reality of

How is this the reality of politics? You are talking about fooling the entire ruling elite. What you are talking about is Gorbachev-esque. Maybe a few Supreme Court justices. Any other examples? If the neo-con media gets even a whiff that Rand is a closet libertarian they will make up lies to destroy him, its that simple. He will not sneak in like this.

We need to crush the media stranglehold to win, plain and simple. We need a revolution of ideas that discredits the media, not a platform that molds and shifts according to media dictates.

Ventura 2012

"You are talking about fooling the entire ruling elite."

I'm not talking about fooling any of them, I'm talking about fooling the masses.

We need to crush the media stranglehold to win, plain and simple. We need a revolution of ideas that discredits the media, not a platform that molds and shifts according to media dictates.

Yea, and I need a million dollars. How do we do it?

If the neo-con media gets even a whiff that Rand is a closet libertarian they will make up lies to destroy him, its that simple. He will not sneak in like this.

They already know it! Because it's obvious! Apparently it's only not obvious to those who should be his natural supporters. The MSM doesn't typically make up facts. They just misrepresent them. Rand is acting as he is so that the MSM doesn't get a good opportunity to attack him as: a crazy isolationist, a heroin-shooting libertine, a conspiracy theorist, or any of the other smears they were able to use successfully against Ron because of his various actions and words.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

WOW just wait till he's up

WOW just wait till he's up for re-election! How naive you are...

How we do it is the same way we've been doing it. Grassroots. Big donations. Word of mouth. Truth. A message that resonates because our words are backed up by action not by pandering.

If you think the media doesn't make things up you didn't follow Ron Paul in 2008-12. Calling free-traders and followers of international law(not UN law but Treaty Law/Laws of War) "isolationists" is literally MAKING THINGS UP. The opposite is the case! All the media needs to do is a few stories about how Rand Paul is trying to "hijack" the GOP. In fact the neo-cons are already saying this.

Rand Paul is a shorter, uglier, worse public speaker than Rubio. He will not win by beating them at their own game. Our uniqueness is our strength. You are waaayyyyyy to focused on reasons "not" to vote for our candidates and not why we DO get significant support. Take away all the reasons why we DO get support and we have nothing. We have Ron and Rand Paul who are terrible public speakers and come across as frail and weak. Their strength is exactly in the message and they are NOTHING apart from it. Rand Paul beat Trey Greyson because he was more honest and more RADICAL than the neo-con Greyson.

When everything is stacked against you, the only way to win a fight is a "punchers chance". Its time to start throwing haymakers.

Ventura 2012

Already dealt with that 100x

Already dealt with that 100x

"If Rand Paul is labeled as a neo-con in the primary he will not be able to shake that label in the general election. And he will not be able to out-neocon the neocons in the primary who are intellectually consistent enough to devastate human rights home AND abroad. Actually Rand looks like a complete idiot saying Islam is such a huge threat that we need to put sanctions on them yet no need for TSA, NDAA etc etc. That argument has lost every time in US history."

"I like Marco Rubio's hair more and theyre both pro-sactions and in the same party and Rand said he would vote for Rubio and doesn't really stand out so I'll just vote for Rubio."

Ventura 2012

Theres nothing "practical"

Theres nothing "practical" about sacrificing principals for political gain... it illustrates that he is NOT a true believer in liberty. Period. Instead of resorting to personal attacks and defending this guy because his last name is Paul, realize he just voted for an unconstitutional act of War.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Response

"Theres nothing "practical" about sacrificing principals for political gain"

Of course there is, that's the reason people do it.

"it illustrates that he is NOT a true believer in liberty."

No, it illustrates that he willing to vote contrary to this principles in order to win more political support.

"Instead of resorting to personal attacks"

What personal attacks?

"defending this guy because his last name is Paul"

I'm defending him for the same reason I would defend any other libertarian in office. I want to see people support him, so that we can put libertarianism in practice (as opposed to just talking about it on the Daily Paul).

"realize he just voted for an unconstitutional act of War."

Uh, yea, I realize that. How could I not, it's the subject of the thread.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Just astonishing to me that

Just astonishing to me that logic.... this site is dedicated to the ONE man who didnt do what you just described, How far can this logic go?

- Rand should vote FOR the drug war because its politically accepted at this point and can help his political career....

- He should also just vote for going to WAR with Iran, never mind this sanction stuff, we need a war with Iran because those who vote against the war are kooks and pussies. How can liberty advance if someone doesn't vote for this war?

- Actually, we shouldn't Audit/ eliminate the FED, its evil and practically eroding our currency to toilet paper, but hey!, its politics, right!

Lead by example with truth... not by playing games. Everything you just stated sounds like establishment rhetoric than is just pouted to distract people from real issues. Wake up

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Classic reductio ad absurdam

Classic reductio ad absurdam devastation of the closet neo-cons. Well done.

Ventura 2012

A reductio ad absurdum...

...involves extending some principle to its ultimate conclusion, which is absurd, from which it can be claimed that the principle itself is absurd. What principle did the poster extend? The principle that a politician should always vote for what's popular or convenient. Did anyone on the pro-Rand side of the argument suggest that a principle that Rand should use to guide his actions? No.

The poster did not achieve a reductio ad absurdum, he made a fallacious straw-man argument. Nuts to you.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

LOL no need to lie to

LOL no need to lie to yourself!

Ventura 2012

So you have no actual response?

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I disagree with virtually

I disagree with virtually every word you said so I don't even see a single point of contention worth debating. Prosecution rests.

Ventura 2012

Okie doke

...thanks for conceding, saves me the pain of further interaction with you.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Again, false dichotomy, Rand must be all pure or all selllout

Or, if it's useful for Rand to vote Aye on this bad law, then it would be useful for him to vote Aye on all bad laws = non sequitur. Your position is fallacious.

...We have our own sheeple, they are awake to the correct principles, they know what they want in the end, but they have absolutely no clue about how to achieve it in reality, how to get from here to there.

So the bleat goes on ;-)

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Its not false dichotomy at

Its not false dichotomy at all... its what you claimed is necessary.

Example on how maintain principals. Ron Paul worked with Barney Frank on legalizing industrial hemp and marijuana measures, the two could not be more opposed in almost EVERY other facet of politics, but they formed a COALITION to advance what is right. I happen to believe that if you do not have sacrifice principals to advance politically, that you will always get further if you are consistent and honest. It took Ron 30 years, but his time has come. More and more Americans are waking up and realizing they dont want talking points, they want honesty and integrity, especially the youth generation (18 - 40). History will Remember Ron Paul more than Obama, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, or ANY of these figures simply because he was HONEST... it goes a long way in the long run, not so much for immediate gratification, but thats not what its about.

If you are going to sit here and defend voting for unconstitutional acts of War then I think your in the wrong place.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

See my post above...

...in trying to draw a general principle for action from my claim that it was good for Rand to vote Aye, you are obviously missing the crux of what PRACTICAL means. There aren't principle. In one case, it might be expedient to vote contrary to principle, not in other cases. Do you understand this? In valuing principles above practicality you are mistaking means for ends. Can you dig it?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I can 'dig' that you are lost

I can 'dig' that you are lost and confused and ramblin and clearly out of touch with what freedom means. You what going against principal is ? Going against principal is Ron Paul participating in government AT ALL. He has hated the beast known as the state for over 50 years. Stefan Molyneux claims that it is immoral for RP to act in the government at all if truly believes his rhetoric...

I disagree, because right now we HAVE government. Ron Paul knew he would never win POTUS, his goal was education, waking people up, and leading by example. Big difference between actually voting for things you dont believe in.... thats all based on back room deals. "you vote for this, we'll help you out."

I can 'dig' participating in the state in order to voice a rather obscure, but gaining popularity, opinion of reducing state power over individual lives. The ultimate goal is to draw back the power of the state as much as possible and inorder to do that, we need Ron Paul's spreading awareness. We dont need Rand Paul's saying one thing, voting differently, and expecting THIS crowd not to notice and defend him.

seriously, HE VOTED ON AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF WAR, PERIOD.

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

Not a false dichotamy

You picked the most important issue of this movement, from which assaults on civil liberties flow, to sell out on. Its reasonable for him to assume that you would sell out on lesser issues as well.

Which issues do you think should not be compromised on to get elected?

Ventura 2012

My opinion...

...that Rand is "one of us" is not based on his acts/speech as a politician, so I really don't care what he does or says to get ahead, provided it works and he does get ahead.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

WHAT IS IT BASED ON THEN?

WHAT IS IT BASED ON THEN? Faith?

Ventura 2012

Let me clue you into something.

In politics, things are not as they appear. Shocking, I know. How can you ever be certain of someone else's motives? You can't. You have to interpret their behavior. I find the interpretation of Rand's behavior as a libertarian trying to make it in politics more compelling than the narrative that he is an establishment guy pretending to be a libertarian. Look at his personal history, the fact that he campaigned so much for Ron, long after he was a child, but before he was a politician in his own right. Look at his speeches, those not intended for a mass audience. Exercise some judgment, read between the lines. Do you need your opinions spoon fed to you? Well, since we're having this discussion, I guess the answer is yes.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

News flash:Even if he thinks

News flash:

Even if he thinks he is Gorbachev he is not and I vehemently disagree with the strategy. The fact that he campaigned for his dad makes this strategy virtually impossible to succeed. We are not talking about fooling voters, we are(as you said earlier) talking about fooling the neocon cabal at Faux News and GOP party leadership here.

http://www.dailypaul.com/264797#comment-2851149

OR

He could just be getting corrupted. Most politicians get corrupt when they go to Washington. That is par for the course, 99% of the time. You still to that 10% though based on naive faith. My guess is 90% of THIS FORUM would cave into the perfect 10/10 DC hookers that he can have every night of his life if he wants as long as he plays ball. Not to mention untold millions. He could simply be getting peer pressured. Sometimes it even happens unwittingly. Frog in the boiling pot.

OR

He actually is a neo-con. He voted for sanctions last time too. The real lie is the libertarian stuff an the real him (now, anyway) is the genocidal foreign policy.

Ventura 2012

Reponse

We are not talking about fooling voters, we are(as you said earlier) talking about fooling the neocon cabal at Faux News and GOP party leadership here.

When did I say that? That's the opposite of what I've been saying. Rand's game is precisely about fooling the masses. No one thinks he's fooling the GOP or the owners of FOX. Don't you get it? Even if they KNOW for sure that Rand is an enemy of theirs (i.e. one of us), they can't attack him for, for instance, being the sole anti-sanction vote, if in fact he didn't cast it! You're demanding that Rand vote and speech in such a way that he gives the MSM all the fodder they need to construct exactly the kind of narrative that caused Ron Paul to lose the nomination.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I thought you said something

I thought you said something to the effect of how this vote would "make Senators/Fox think he's on their side" but I cant find it, thread is too long. I could be wrong. Regardless, the media can lie and make up issues to attack Rand about. All acting like the crowd does is fail to distinguish us from the candidates that will be getting the most press(media favored candidates).

They have plenty of ammo to attack him with already, believe me. He can have fun defending his Civil Rights act comments in concert with his genocidal foreign policy to the general public if he is lucky enough to get out of the primary(against strong neo-con candidates like Christie, Ryan, and Rubio).

Ventura 2012

I agree

I agree, but if we can't get in a position to make a difference, we will never change anything... It's like all the pro-life people who will not give the power to the states, then wonder why abortions are still happening. If we took the power from the federal government, many abortions would stop. Sometimes you can't see the forest beyond the trees.

Jason Burns

Welcome to the r3VOLuti0n!

http://r3VOLuti0n.com

You should view this movement

You should view this movement as more of an ideological movement and less of a Gorbachev-style intelligence operation. Gorbachev was a once in a millennium event. It won't happen again. On the other hand, there have been countless sweeping social and political movements throughout history. These movements are ignited by courage and conviction, not by sellouts that can only dampen "revolutionary" fervor.

Ventura 2012