-76 votes

Still believe in Rand Paul? -here is your wake up call...

US Senate *Unanimously* Passes Resolution Supporting Israeli Assault on Gaza.

Following a similar resolution passed last week by the U.S. House, the U.S. Senate voted Thursday night to support Israel’s ongoing invasion of the Gaza Strip.

No dissenting vote was cast, and no mention was made of the hundreds of Palestinian civilians, most of whom are women and children, that have been killed by Israel in the past ten days.
http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S.%20RES%20498%2...
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.ca/



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I totally agree with you!

( :

A.Hansen

I know

more than a few ignorant M.D.'s. In fact, most I have spoken to, while intelligent in matters of medicine and biology/life sciences; they are often quiet ill read in matters of economics, philosophy and culturally illiterate. Obviously Paul the Elder is a different matter. Paul the younger is in fact disingenuous. Who is he being disingenuous too? Only he knows, either way I will not support him.

Libertarian supports right to self-defense!

Wow that is horrible!!!!

Ah - no it's not.

SteveMT's picture

Keyword: The resolution was "non-binding."

Every country has the right to defend itself against attacks. That is a given. This resolution was a political game of charades for members to look good and to get reelected. It's a "hold your nose and vote yes" resolution, imo. I could not have done it. Israel already gets $3B/year in aid from us; that's about $10 from each citizen annually. In any case, the non-binding resolution doesn't mean anything. Let this go.
----------------------------
U.S. Senate unanimously approves resolution giving full support of Israel on Gaza
The resolution had 78 bipartisan co-sponsors and was introduced by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) The House passed a similar res. July 11.
By JTA | Jul. 20, 2014 | 2:50 PM |
The U.S. Senate unanimously approved a non-binding [emphasis me] resolution in support of Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.606183

You should know better than that, EnkiJr.

There is a reason for the Resolution and why nobody voted against it. Listen and learn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeVBa4lSscw&app=desktop

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

Garan's picture

I Noticed Something Similar when Supporting Ron Paul

I entered the local Republican caucus and asked if other attendants read the platform, to which caucus voters basically pledge. They said 'no', yet took interest.

I then went on to point out contradictions in the platform which guarantees that anyone who pledges to uphold the entire platform would be a liar.

That's the first step to become a Republican.
It's probably the same type of deal for Democrats.

I'm guessing the platform was a sloppy hodge-podge of compromise.
I don't think anyone should feel comfortable pledging to such a thing.
It's almost a joke, that is suddenly taken seriously when it serves someone's purpose (party influence and control).

It's kind of hard to respect the process when you must first become a liar in order to participate. ..and that's just the beginning.

And to Shed Some More Light...

..here's the clip:

http://youtu.be/MeVBa4lSscw

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Nice

clip. No pledge, no campaign money.

"Believing" in politicians? What a funny thread.

Libertarian vs. far left foreign policy

It sounds like you are taking a far left position, not a libertarian one. The far left wants to scold Israel whereas the libertarians want to leave everyone alone.

Ron Paul has consistently stated that Israel has the right to defend itself. He has even pointed out that we curtail Israel's right to self defense when we give them foreign aid and tell them what to do. And of course, arming both sides does no one any good.

‘Each individual is separated from others by a "taboo of personal isolation"...this "narcissism of minor differences"'
--Sigmund Freud

Did any of you retards read

Did any of you retards read the resolution?

The United Staes reaffirms Israel's rights to defend its citizens and ensure the survival of the state of Israel.

This does not mean our boots on the ground. This does not mean more money send to aid in the conflict (cause we already do). This does not mean shit accept reaffirming that the United States is still an alli of Israel which we have been so nothing about this resolution changes anything.

Even Ron Paul says Israel has a right to defend themselves. And you should care less. The only thing we need to do is cut of our foreign aid...to ALL. Which Rand is in favor of doing.

Was the retard comment..

really necessary?

See What the government is Spending?
http://www.amazon.com/What-Government-Spending-A-Citizen-ebo...

Garan's picture

Age-Old Psycological Classifications Would be More Appropriate

..such as moron, idiot, imbecile.

Here is a link explaining those Psychological terms:
http://problem_words.enacademic.com/1088/moron,_idiot,_imbecile

The page offers more socially accepted alternatives: dunce, dolt, and numskull.

;)

Sometimes it just is.

Sometimes it just is.

I am probably going to get down voted for saying this but...

Rand Paul has always referred to himself as a Constitutional Conservative (with libertarian leanings) and he has often (to our great disapproval) demonstrated this to be so.

Rand Paul, unlike his father, is willing to 'play the game' and slant his views for his particular audience, which, primarily, is the Republican base. We all remember here how often it was said of his father, "I like his view EXCEPT for his policies on Israel". Well, Rand Paul is covering his bases there fairly well. Unlike Ron Paul, Rand Paul has made himself fairly acceptable to Israeli supporters and (if he can successfully woo the Republican Establishment; BIG IF!) can get the Republican nomination for President in 2016.

This is HOW the game is played! Hate the game,... not the player. I hope no one here is under any illusion that we live in a free, fair, and equitable society. We DON'T!!! While I think it is very fair to criticize Rand Paul when his views are just plain wrong, remember he has a hope of getting the Republican nomination while his father, in the present corrupt world, never had any real chance.

For liberty to advance, it is going to require many different standard bearers. Gary Johnson was more a pragmatic Libertarian, rather than an ideological one, for which he was much criticized here, yet he reached out and touched many Americans with his message that had otherwise been cold to our arguments. Rand Paul is a different messenger from us here at the Daily Paul. I resent the world we live in more than I resent Rand Paul making adjustments to that world in order to even be considered.

Consider this question: How likely do you believe, that when Rand Paul has actually won the Presidential election, that he will be as big a disappointment to us Libertarians, as Barack Hussein Obama II has been to Progressives? Most everything bad being said about Rand Paul could still be true, and yet also, once elected he could still be the best President this country has ever elected. We don't get to achieve our goals in one giant step, but rather, in many small steps instead. Evolution works with what it has, in any given moment. It does not get to just start over and try again. We American Libertarians have to work with what opportunities we have, not with what we want!

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
· From Bondage to Spiritual Faith
· From Spiritual Faith to Great Courage
· From Courage to Liberty
· From Liberty to Abundance
· From Abundance to Selfishness
· From Selfishness to Complacency
· From Complacency to Apathy
· From Apathy to Dependency
· From Dependency back into Bondage"
~ Alexander Fraser Tytler
18th century Historian and Jurist

"The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own."
Sir Richard Burton

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Very well said. Rand Paul is

Very well said.

Rand Paul is not trying to bear the torch of Liberty...he's trying to become president. Unfortunately he needs the support of the republican base.

While there are many issues I tend not to agree with... I Love how from time to time Rand throws in a nod to the Liberty folk as if to say "I'm still with you guys".

Thank you for your comments but...

my biggest fear is that Rand Paul, like Glenn Beck or Bill Maher, with become the public's image of what a libertarian actually is. The world, liberal, used to mean libertarian, and then the progressives paid us the ultimate complement of stealing our name and changing it into Frankenstein's monster. Even Ayn Rand thought that the term, libertarian, is a somewhat awkward neologism (she preferred to be called a 'Radical for Capitalism') but what choice did we have. Even Charles Murray had to admit defeat, give up referring to himself as a liberal, or as a classical liberal (in our present historical illiteracy, most folks think a classical liberal would refer to Ted Kennedy) and, instead, embrace the term, libertarian.

If we lose the word, libertarian, also (no copyrights are granted for ideological terms), where do we then go to? Anarchism still means, in most people's minds, chaos, fear, and wanton destruction of property, rather than rules without rulers, so it is still too soon to call ourselves that. Given the investment we have all made in the political label, libertarian, do we REALLY want to have to abandon it, and start all over, AGAIN, with some other neologism?

This being said, this, regretfully, is how new ideas spread in a culture. To become familiar to others is always to risk losing oneself. Like the maxims that "The person who cares the least about a relationship, has the most power, in that relationship", or "One can't really be successful in this world without the cooperation of others", for the message of liberty to spread, we must risk losing the meaning or our words, yet again. Even Sisyphus probably had an easier time of it than proselytizers of liberty. But is there any alternative? Eternal vigilance, as well as being eternally mischaracterized, is our eternal lot in this life. But, at least, we still have an opportunity to fight.

"The danger to which the success of revolutions is most exposed, is that of attempting them before the principles on which they proceed, and the advantages to result from them, are sufficiently seen and understood."
~ Thomas Paine

“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”
~ Thomas Paine, The American Crisis

“We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
~ Thomas Paine

"The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own."
Sir Richard Burton

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Haha, it's funny, because

Haha, it's funny, because I've read somewhere that the current Libertarians stole the word itself from a previous generation. The original Libertarians did not believe in the notion of property rights. Not sure if this is true, though I do find it rather interesting.

Is rationalwiki.org actually rational?

See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Libertarian

Here is a direct quote from the site...
"This anti-government phenomenon is found primarily in the United States, likely due to Americans' extensive experience with dysfunctional government, coupled with their unawareness of the existence of other countries. Historically, and almost everywhere other than America still today, the term has been associated with libertarian socialism and anarchism. The adoption of the libertarian label by advocates of free market economics is an ironic example of their tendency to take credit for other people's ideas."

I guess it is not possible to patent the meaning of the word, 'rational' either. Check out the entire article, and get a fairly good take on how the mainstream 'rational' folks view us. If nothing else, it is sure to get your heart pumping!

"The dearest ambition of a slave is not liberty, but to have a slave of his own."
Sir Richard Burton

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Yeah, wikipedia has a better

Yeah, wikipedia has a better article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The original Libertarianism had French origins and was socialistic in nature (left Libertarianism). I once read a post of one of the original Libertarians complaining how free market proponents hijacked their label. Tried to find that post again, but alas.

.

.

Rand Paul has been clear

Rand Paul has been clear about his support for Israel from the getgo. Why are you surprised?

And we all know he has to be

And we all know he has to be pro Israel to get the support of the republican base.

I tried to

help you out, but we have too many Rand idolators, who will support him, even when he supports genocidal murder. I assume they believe Liberty ends at the American borders, and if you support Tyranny abroad, ie Israel/Ukraine, it is a non-issue? However, Ron Paul taught us that Liberty is a notion to be promoted throughout the World, and tyranny is always to be denounced no matter what. Foreign entanglements lead to this foolish support of tyrannical measures, but with Rand, he seems to have bought into the apostate religous belief of a Jewish only state. A true messenger of Liberty would state the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves too, and the US shouldn't be involved in chosing sides.
Is this what Rand supports, and what you support? Use your 1st Amendment right to tell him you disprove of his unwavering support of the Zionist totalitarian state, instead of being an appologist for his support of this supremicist regime.
http://youtu.be/cbHSiQyCPTw

Neoconservativism vs Libertarianism

You do not seem to understand Ron Paul's message. Ron Paul did not denounce tyranny around the world. Ron Paul fought our own government's actions that contributed to tyranny domestically and abroad. In contrast, neoconservatives foment tyranny while purporting to stop tyranny in other nations.

‘Each individual is separated from others by a "taboo of personal isolation"...this "narcissism of minor differences"'
--Sigmund Freud

Who says we support genocide

Who says we support genocide murder? Do you even know what this resolution is about. I could care less about who is assaulting who. Israel has a right to do as they will without the approval of the US. Or perhaps you would prefer us to stand in support of Palestine. That's not very Libertarian of you.

Souled Out

Rand is in bed with the military industrial complex (petrodollar). Rand tries to ride the fence. On one side he courts the liberty crowd with talk of freedom, rights and privacy. On the other side he courts the establishment by supporting their wars. A man cannot serve two masters. Rand has to make a choice to either serve the people's interests or the corporate interests. The path he has chosen makes both sides skeptical of him and in the end both sides will lose faith in him.

No doubt about it that Ron Paul was a man of the people and for the people. I hate to say it but we need to vet a new face for the liberty movement. If Rand will sellout his own father for a few Republican brownie points, what do you think he will sell you for?

The skeptical people....

The skeptical people on our side are paranoid delusionals who are irrelevant so winning their trust is also irrelevant. Plus, I hope he serves no masters especially your ilk.

Check the Pudding

Get mad all you want but it won't change the truth. Rand sold out the liberty movement when he endorsed Mitt Romney. He could have still supported his dad or even put his political weight behind Gary Johnson. But no, he chose to kiss the establishment ring. If the guy will forsake his morals in exchange for a political pat on the back, he's not my guy. In fact, that just shows you who his real owner is.

Now look at him. Kissing the ring of establishment again in support of Israel's warmongering.

Don't say you were not warned. If (BIG IF...) he gets elected, he will play ball just like Bush, Clinton, Bush 2.0 and Obama.

Gary Who???

.....yeah...Gary Who?

How many times can you kick a dead horse?

How many times has Gary sold out?...

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Sophomoric

Your views are sophomoric. It's not a movement if it stands still circle jerking. You can read bloggers all day long who affirm your views. We don't need Rand for that. Bloggers however can't be president. We need Rand for that.