Is Rand Paul Going Neocon on Iran?

[PostmodernProphet]

more nonsense....

 

[Timshel]

and in the real world... you often have to choose between supporting a candidate who follows all the party precepts - and loses - or supporting a candidate who compromises in order to be electable.

Is this a major or minor betrayal? Libertarians can decide.

Sure, we can decide and will. It's also well understood that it might not be politically viable which was indicated by my points on the voters of Kentucky and the makeup of the GOP. The point and fact is that libertarians are not in a dream world. Meanwhile the Howey's and desh's pretty clearly are and act like delusional fanboys for their political favorites.

 

[Timshel]

more nonsense....

I am sure it does not make sense to an idiot like you.

 

[monty1]

Sure, we can decide and will. It's also well understood that it might not be politically viable which was indicated by my points on the voters of Kentucky and the makeup of the GOP. The point and fact is that libertarians are not in a dream world. Meanwhile the Howey's and desh's pretty clearly are and act like delusional fanboys for their political favorites.

Your comments serve the purpose of showing that libertarians are in a dream world. If Rand Paul is torn between being legitimate in Kentucky and legitimate in the whole country then that is proof of the backwardness of Kentucky keeping them in a dream world. A world where their political priorities will never be taken seriously by the mainstream.

And this is a step too far for Rand Paul and you know it! It's a step his daddy could never take in all his years of phony politics. Rand Paul is now a hollow politician with no morals whatsoever.

 

[anatta]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shams/is-rand-paul-going-neocon_b_3784998.html

Last Friday, I received an email from Rand Paul's office. He was, ostensibly, responding to my letter urging the Senate to oppose a new resolution that would call for the U.S. to enforce sanctions and provide economic, political, and military support if Israel attacked Iran. I opened it assuming that I'd read an email about how Senator Paul remained committed to standing strong against the push for war and sanctions. Boy was I wrong.


Ten months after sitting with what I assumed was a sympathetic ear, I read the following:


Iran continues to pose a threat to the region and the world as it continues nuclear development in the face of international sanctions and pressure to halt this aggressive behavior. Though a nuclear Iran would be a threat on the global scale, there is also concern that a nuclear Iran would aggressively target our ally Israel.

The United States and Israel have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unifies us across many thousands of miles and calls on us to work together toward peace and prosperity. This peace is not only between our two nations, but also our neighbors.

In February 2013, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced S.Res.65, a Senate resolution stating it is the sense of Congress that the United States and international organizations should continue the enforcement of sanctions against Iran. In addition, S.Res.65 reiterates the policy of the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and our continued support of our ally Israel.

I supported S.Res.65, which passed both the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the full Senate unanimously.


He goes on to mention that he got language included in the resolution stating that it does not authorize war. But I admittedly had to re-read the letter a few times. Here was a letter from Sen. Rand Paul, a supposed anti-sanctions, anti-war isolationist, that was basically doing a complete 180 degree turn away from what Paul's been advocating since before his election.

....

This signals just how powerful the neo-conservative movement is in the Republican Party. They apparently remain the kingmakers and if anyone wants to win the nomination in 2016 it won't be without their approval. And it looks as if they've answered affirmatively to Scott McConnell, who wrote a piece in November 2010 on the Tea Party's foreign policy:


The question is, can the neocons, as they have with other political factions in the past, successfully co-opt this new political force in such a way as to make it amenable to their goals?

It remains to be seen if Rand Paul is really willing to sell out his anti-sanctions, anti-war stance to AIPAC and the neo-cons. With a push underway for the Senate to consider new sanctions this fall, Paul will have a major role to play as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. If he is willing to flip flop on sanctions and war threats, I wonder what else he'd be willing to compromise. Will it be so farfetched to hear Paul calling for limited strikes on Iran--so long as Congress authorizes them. Will he continue to be the libertarian darling then? Regardless, his vow not to compromise post-2010 election looks in jeopardy.

dissapointing fron R. Paul; seems to be a backtrack to either neo-cons, or the "Israel special relationship" card they ALL have to play.

Does this even need to be enunciated? Iran is a regional powerhouse -if they are nuclear, it isn't much different he Pakistan's nuclearization.

some differences, but a similarity too ( Paki to India /Israel to Iran)

Anyways.. being a nuclear power is not the the same as a regional power ( traditional force/economic power).
Once the sanction go away, i would presume Iran would be both

It seems all we are just going to do this dance of saying "nyet" to Iran's rightful place.

One has to wonder IF/WHEN they are able to use a delivery system, and a nuke and Israel starts to scream..what will we do??

 

[monty1]

The "Israel special relationship" was always a catch 22 for Ron Paul anyway. The baggers don't like anybody who isn't an American and giving money to anybody who isn't was a problem for them. So Rand Paul has just got himself deeper into his phoniness and false priorities. The stupid fuck was never going to be as smart as his father in playing their dishonest games. And his father never could hide it all that well either. Complete failure on any scene larger than the creepy rats of Kentucky.

They didn't get the reputation of the leading sister fuckers for no reason!

 

[Timshel]

Your comments serve the purpose of showing that libertarians are in a dream world. If Rand Paul is torn between being legitimate in Kentucky and legitimate in the whole country then that is proof of the backwardness of Kentucky keeping them in a dream world. A world where their political priorities will never be taken seriously by the mainstream.

And this is a step too far for Rand Paul and you know it! It's a step his daddy could never take in all his years of phony politics. Rand Paul is now a hollow politician with no morals whatsoever.

Fail. You did not offer anything to support your opening assertion.

Rand, has done quite a bit to make it seem that he is nothing but a pandering politician without moral principles. It's a bad move by Paul, at least, from a libertarian perspective. Of course, I know it. Why do you think I posted it? As tekky noted, it might make him more electable as saber rattling is a popular position for both of the war parties. Just look at how the Democrats here are gushing over the left leaning neocon Hillary, who McCain said he might vote for over Paul. I don't think he will convince the neocons to support him. He will just end up making a mockery of his opposition to them.

 

[Howey]

why should that stop the haters from pointing fingers while ignoring their own parties politicians from doing the same thing? desh, for example. it's almost funny to watch her call freedom and liberty a failed idea.

I don't hate libertarians. They're just misguided.

Sure, we can decide and will. It's also well understood that it might not be politically viable which was indicated by my points on the voters of Kentucky and the makeup of the GOP. The point and fact is that libertarians are not in a dream world. Meanwhile the Howey's and desh's pretty clearly are and act like delusional fanboys for their political favorites.

How would a libertarian government without regulation and taxes exist? Don't say the states can handle it because, a. it's unconstitutional, and b. It's financially impossible. Will each state be required to maintain it's own Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines? Who'll maintain roads and other infrastructure? Who's going to bury the elderly, poor and infirm as they die off from lack of care?

If Libertarianism is such a great idea, why are there no Libertarian countries right now?

 

[monty1]

Fail. You did not offer anything to support your opening assertion.

Rand, has done quite a bit to make it seem that he is nothing but a pandering politician without moral principles. It's a bad move by Paul, at least, from a libertarian perspective. Of course, I know it. Why do you think I posted it? As tekky noted, it might make him more electable as saber rattling is a popular position for both of the war parties. Just look at how the Democrats here are gushing over the left leaning neocon Hillary, who McCain said he might vote for over Paul. I don't think he will convince the neocons to support him. He will just end up making a mockery of his opposition to them.

Fail? You agree with essentially everything I said on the topic and then say I failed? Weird.

If you think that Rand Paul has any priorities of stopping the sable rattling then you are as taken in by his bullshit lies as the rest of them. Rand Paul is nothing more than an appeaser of the lowlife in Kentucky who keeps him well fed. He fucks up every time he tries to take it to a larger audience. The reason being, none of the libertarian or bagger ideals can work in the real world.

 

[monty1]

I don't hate libertarians. They're just misguided.



How would a libertarian government without regulation and taxes exist? Don't say the states can handle it because, a. it's unconstitutional, and b. It's financially impossible. Will each state be required to maintain it's own Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines? Who'll maintain roads and other infrastructure? Who's going to bury the elderly, poor and infirm as they die off from lack of care?

If Libertarianism is such a great idea, why are there no Libertarian countries right now?

Get with the program. When it gets down to the crunch and they have to answer for the 'roads' problem, they tell you that roads will be owned by individual companies. So each neighbourhood could have a toll booth set up on the corner so that when you turn onto that road where you live you will drop a few bucks into a toll basket. Simple isn't it!

You see, libertarians think everything should be free, including the roads because they don't think they should pay taxes. So dropping a toll into the basket solves the problem in the only possible way that it can be solved!

And as for the military, just ask them how they would make that work without taxes! Baxter will have that one all figured out too!

Howey, lose the big cartoons and your posts will be noticed more and responded to more. The cartoons are too overpowering. YOu don't have to do it now because it will look like it's my idea but do it soon o.k?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

and in the real world... you often have to choose between supporting a candidate who follows all the party precepts - and loses - or supporting a candidate who compromises in order to be electable.

Is this a major or minor betrayal? Libertarians can decide.

like a good lil prole, you've fallen for the establishments agenda. you choose the lesser of two evils because you've been led to believe that they are the least dangerous while touting that they are working for your own best interests. totally afraid to stand on any principle and brainwashed to think that freedom is actually anarchy waiting to explode.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't hate libertarians. They're just misguided.



How would a libertarian government without regulation and taxes exist? Don't say the states can handle it because, a. it's unconstitutional, and b. It's financially impossible. Will each state be required to maintain it's own Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines? Who'll maintain roads and other infrastructure? Who's going to bury the elderly, poor and infirm as they die off from lack of care?

If Libertarianism is such a great idea, why are there no Libertarian countries right now?

you are either totally ignorant on Libertarianism, or just plain stupid.

 

[Timshel]

Fail? You agree with essentially everything I said on the topic and then say I failed? Weird.

If you think that Rand Paul has any priorities of stopping the sable rattling then you are as taken in by his bullshit lies as the rest of them. Rand Paul is nothing more than an appeaser of the lowlife in Kentucky who keeps him well fed. He fucks up every time he tries to take it to a larger audience. The reason being, none of the libertarian or bagger ideals can work in the real world.

Because it does not prove your assertion that my "comments serve the purpose of showing that libertarians are in a dream world." You are just another idiot that does not have the foggiest clue what you are talking about (like desh criticizing Friedman as an Austrian).

Who says that libertarian ideas are popular in Kentucky or with "Tea Partiers?" Rand has never been fully libertarian and rejects the label.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/4...ans-under-the-bus-in-outreach-to-evangelicals

He is a bit more libertarian than most but that's all. Libertarians were skeptical of him on the foreign policy issues and are years ahead of you. As STY noted he made it known he wasn't his father here (who is only more libertarian than most) during his campaign. No one is in a dream world, except you, moron.

 

[Howey]

you are either totally ignorant on Libertarianism, or just plain stupid.

Ok. So which nations have a libertarian government? Ayn Randistan?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Ok. So which nations have a libertarian government? Ayn Randistan?

stop the obfuscation and deal with your middle paragraph, all of which is inherently moronic and nothing more than flat out obtuseness.

 

[Timshel]

Get with the program. When it gets down to the crunch and they have to answer for the 'roads' problem, they tell you that roads will be owned by individual companies. So each neighbourhood could have a toll booth set up on the corner so that when you turn onto that road where you live you will drop a few bucks into a toll basket. Simple isn't it!

You see, libertarians think everything should be free, including the roads because they don't think they should pay taxes. So dropping a toll into the basket solves the problem in the only possible way that it can be solved!

And as for the military, just ask them how they would make that work without taxes! Baxter will have that one all figured out too!

Howey, lose the big cartoons and your posts will be noticed more and responded to more. The cartoons are too overpowering. YOu don't have to do it now because it will look like it's my idea but do it soon o.k?

You are so far off there is little point in trying to educate you. But what the hell. Many roads in neighborhoods are owned by the neighborhood or the HOA. Toll roads have been used effectively. Neither solution even requires much imagination but certainly it is not clear how well they would work on a larger scale.

You and howey prefer to live in the dream world criticizing distant and barely fathomable potential libertarian problems because it allows you to ignore the realities of our current Democrat/Republican problems, e.g., the NSA, perpetual war, massive debt and the looming crisis in entitlement programs.

 

[tekkychick]

Monty, you can turn off signatures and then you won't see the cartoons in Howey's posts.

Prof, I live on a private road; with only a few residents, there's only so much we can afford to do with it.

To have roads on a bigger scale be handled privately and not by govt would be a huge mess. Basically, the HOA is taking over the role of govt if it maintains roads in a subdivision; they use fees instead of calling them taxes, but it's still govt.

 

[/MSG/]

If Rand has his eye on the Presidential ball, he can't be pure libertarian and anti-intervention; he won't win then.

On the other hand, a president often has to compromise his/her views; they can't be purist and still govern successfully.

Yes, more needless wars are the best compromises.

 

[Timshel]

Ok. So which nations have a libertarian government? Ayn Randistan?

This is such a silly and worthless argument. What country has a government that agrees with your unstated philosophy or everything in the Democratic Party platform?

Our country has been heavily influenced by libertarian ideas. Free markets and a strong protection of individual rights are hallmarks. Our country is certainly not perfectly libertarian. Anyone who is not living in a dreamworld should not expect any country to be. So maybe you can escape your dreamworld and debate the ideas in this one.

 

[/MSG/]

Get with the program. When it gets down to the crunch and they have to answer for the 'roads' problem, they tell you that roads will be owned by individual companies. So each neighbourhood could have a toll booth set up on the corner so that when you turn onto that road where you live you will drop a few bucks into a toll basket. Simple isn't it!

You see, libertarians think everything should be free, including the roads because they don't think they should pay taxes. So dropping a toll into the basket solves the problem in the only possible way that it can be solved!

And as for the military, just ask them how they would make that work without taxes! Baxter will have that one all figured out too!

Howey, lose the big cartoons and your posts will be noticed more and responded to more. The cartoons are too overpowering. YOu don't have to do it now because it will look like it's my idea but do it soon o.k?

How can we want a Flat Tax and no taxes at the same time?