Is Rand Paul Going Neocon on Iran?

Randall Paul is in a difficult position, he got where he is by pretending to be a libertarian, but he knows he cant get where he wants to go by being a libertarian so he is trying his hand at the Texas Two Step.
 
Clovis said:
Yes, more needless wars are the best compromises.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling for war in Iran or Syria myself. But if Rand Paul wants to be president, he might need to do that to get the Republican nomination.

It sucks. I agree. But the neo-cons are like that.
 
tekkychick said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am not all that interested in debating this. It's an issue that is not currently relevant or all that pressing. Here, it is merely a red herring used by those who don't want their failed solutions to real world problems addressed. I was only showing that monty had oversimplified the argument by pretending that neighborhood roads offer some insurmountable hurdle. We are already using the solutions.

However, I will address your points as they always seemed to be offered in good faith.

There is only so much the government can afford to do with a road. Especially, one that serves only a few residents. Limited resources are a problem that the government cannot overcome. If it could you would not have a private road and if it were not for private solutions you would have no road at all.

When libertarians argue against all taxes they intend to replace them with user fees to finance the services provided. Road maintenance is not the essence of government. While the HOA may seem somewhat like a government you will know it is not because they will not use your user fees to expand into imprisoning people for victimless crimes or to bomb the neighborhood across the street.
 
Professor Baxter said:
There is only so much the government can afford to do with a road. Especially, one that serves only a few residents. Limited resources are a problem that the government cannot overcome. If it could you would not have a private road and if it were not for private solutions you would have no road at all.

When libertarians argue against all taxes they intend to replace them with user fees to finance the services provided. Road maintenance is not the essence of government. While the HOA may seem somewhat like a government you will know it is not because they will not use your user fees to expand into imprisoning people for victimless crimes or to bomb the neighborhood across the street.
Click to expand...


From what I've heard about HOAs, that may be next on their agenda!!! (grin)

The roads is, as you say, a small example. But there are some things govt can do better than private individuals or groups; and vice versa. Our venn diagrams just have different sizes of circles around what govt should do...
 
Professor Baxter said:
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.
Click to expand...

All libertarians live in a dream world. They have to be because none of their agendas are popular to ever be mainstream. Mainstream is the opposite of their agenda because they thrive on negativism and denial of the obvious. As for me knowing something about libertarianism, how could anyone? It changes with the tides and can't be defended because the ugly details are just too embarrassing for them to stand behind. Only the dumbest of the dumb will take their notions of no taxes to it's logical conclusions and that fits in with my scenario of toll booths on street corners for paying the owners of the roads. Hahahaha!

When you're not angry anymore you'll grow up and support a political persuasion that has a 'bit' of a chance at least to be a factor in your politics. And that's about all the time I have to waste on one of them.
 
tekkychick said:
From what I've heard about HOAs, that may be next on their agenda!!! (grin)

The roads is, as you say, a small example. But there are some things govt can do better than private individuals or groups; and vice versa. Our venn diagrams just have different sizes of circles around what govt should do...
Click to expand...

Yes, and your road is an example of something for which private solutions have proven better. The government solution is to ignore your request for a road and/or tell you to move to an area where it can efficiently provide a road.
 
Professor Baxter said:
I am not all that interested in debating this. It's an issue that is not currently relevant or all that pressing. Here, it is merely a red herring used by those who don't want their failed solutions to real world problems addressed. I was only showing that monty had oversimplified the argument by pretending that neighborhood roads offer some insurmountable hurdle. We are already using the solutions.

However, I will address your points as they always seemed to be offered in good faith.

There is only so much the government can afford to do with a road. Especially, one that serves only a few residents. Limited resources are a problem that the government cannot overcome. If it could you would not have a private road and if it were not for private solutions you would have no road at all.

When libertarians argue against all taxes they intend to replace them with user fees to finance the services provided. Road maintenance is not the essence of government. While the HOA may seem somewhat like a government you will know it is not because they will not use your user fees to expand into imprisoning people for victimless crimes or to bomb the neighborhood across the street.
Click to expand...

Note the very first line:
I am not all that interested in debating this. It's an issue that is not currently relevant or all that pressing.
Click to expand...

And away the dumbfuck libertarians runs, as always!
Batshit crazy with politics of hate and not even smart enough to defend it's own nest, nor to remove the old bat guano from it when it starts to stink.
 
monty1 said:
All libertarians live in a dream world. They have to be because none of their agendas are popular to ever be mainstream. Mainstream is the opposite of their agenda because they thrive on negativism and denial of the obvious. As for me knowing something about libertarianism, how could anyone? It changes with the tides and can't be defended because the ugly details are just too embarrassing for them to stand behind. Only the dumbest of the dumb will take their notions of no taxes to it's logical conclusions and that fits in with my scenario of toll booths on street corners for paying the owners of the roads. Hahahaha!

When you're not angry anymore you'll grow up and support a political persuasion that has a 'bit' of a chance at least to be a factor in your politics. And that's about all the time I have to waste on one of them.
Click to expand...

It does not fit into your scenario. I told you how neighborhood roads can be and are provided for privately without toll booths. It's not even a hard case.
 
monty1 said:
Note the very first line:

And away the dumbfuck libertarians runs, as always!
Batshit crazy with politics of hate and not even smart enough to defend it's own nest, nor to remove the old bat guano from it when it starts to stink.
Click to expand...

Yeah, then keep reading. I answered both tekky and you. Your followups have been non responsive. A toll booth is not the only way to provide for the neighborhood roads and plenty of them are private NOW.

You are throwing softballs.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Yes, and your road is an example of something for which private solutions have proven better. The government solution is to ignore your request for a road and/or tell you to move to an area where it can efficiently provide a road.
Click to expand...

I think there is a way to convert it into a county-maintained road, but from what I've heard, it's more trouble than it's worth.

Although after spending $6,000 to have road base put on the last mile after we moved in .... I'm missing county-maintained roads!

Our road works because we all cooperate in taking care of it. When the first 1/2 mile needed roadbase, we all put in a share of the money, with those further up the road paying more. Everyone was willing, so it worked out. If we had someone who refused, we would have to decide to do it anyway without them paying in or to not do it. We have no enforcement power.

We didn't have anyone but us on the last mile, so we were stuck with that cost.
 
Professor Baxter said:
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.
Click to expand...



the guy is power hungry and has no morals.


He also not too bright.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
stop the obfuscation and deal with your middle paragraph, all of which is inherently moronic and nothing more than flat out obtuseness.
Click to expand...

Just answer the question. Why are there no libertarian governments in the whole wide world?

Professor Baxter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Most roads are owned by the government, federal state. Who will maintain them?

Professor Baxter said:
dream world
Click to expand...

Sorry, bud. I live in reality. Rand Paul supporters live in a dream world that's unsustainable.
 
btw...conversion to a libertarian government would require a massive rewriting of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Which would require approval by three quarters of the states. It'll never happen.
 
Howey said:
btw...conversion to a libertarian government would require a massive rewriting of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Which would require approval by three quarters of the states. It'll never happen.
Click to expand...

Why would it require rewriting the constitution? Libertarians like the constitution especially the parts that hinder your desire for a police state.

Your strawman arguments indicate that you are in a dream world. No one has suggested that ours will likely become a purely libertarian government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top