PDA

View Full Version : Are We Sure About Rand?




Revolution0918
02-17-2010, 05:33 AM
Before I write this no im not a troll, im simply asking bcuz i havent looked into him really (been busy with work) and after Schiff came out with his foreign policy stuff, i dont want to be fooled again. Rand did say that stuff in support of Palin last nite, and yes it could have been a good political answer, but we all know we wouldnt give any1 else a pass for not standing up for their beliefs, why Rand? Just asking if were sure he stands with us on all the issues.

Bman
02-17-2010, 05:37 AM
Yes I'm sure about Rand. I'm sure he is not a liberty candidate.

I've posted earlier and I think people need to come to terms with the reality that Rand is simular to Demint. That being said amongst the current group of people in the Senate I do like Demint more than most, but would never support him on a grassroots level, nor champion him as a liberty candidate.

The same now applies for Rand.

itshappening
02-17-2010, 05:53 AM
Rand Paul is trying to win a U.S Senate seat, do you know how hard this is? it's a statewide election and he cannot be like Ron Paul for now, he has to please a lot of people to win

Revolution0918
02-17-2010, 05:54 AM
if he cant be like him now, and run on his principles, who is to say that he is all of a sudden going to switch? could it possibly be true that THIS IS the way he is, and that he isnt all of a sudden going to switch to being like his dad when he gets in?

TheTyke
02-17-2010, 05:55 AM
I'm glad he's trying to win. That's what I gave him the max donation for. So he could get in the Senate and actually VOTE for liberty. Not to get on TV and attack people.

itshappening
02-17-2010, 05:56 AM
6 years in the senate vs. a few months of pleasing mainstream Republicans. just remember to stay focused and what is at stake

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-17-2010, 05:58 AM
6 years in the senate vs. a few months of pleasing mainstream Republicans. just remember to stay focused and what is at stake

Boy you sure know whats in Rand Paul's head. With that sort of power you should be appointed Enlightened Despot.

nobody's_hero
02-17-2010, 06:03 AM
Maybe Rand is just playing the part of neocon at times to trick people into voting for him?

Our tyrannical adversaries do the same thing, every election. They talk a good game about freedom and rights and limited government and then betray the voters when they get into office.

Maybe Rand is gonna rally for tyranny and big government and warmongering and then betray (save) the voters when he gets into office?

So, I'm not sure about Rand, but if this is his strategy, he could be a genius.

Baptist
02-17-2010, 06:04 AM
Rand Paul is trying to win a U.S Senate seat, do you know how hard this is? it's a statewide election and he cannot be like Ron Paul for now, he has to please a lot of people to win

In the Revolution Manifesto Ron Paul quoted the apostle Paul who in Romans Chapter 3 said not to do evil so that good would come about. But many on these forums defend all these "liberty candidates" because "they have to to get elected."

I remember the early days of these forums (back in 07) many people stating that the reason they loved Ron Paul was because he did not compromise his principles.

Guess times have changed.

Austrian Econ Disciple
02-17-2010, 06:05 AM
In the Revolution Manifesto Ron Paul quoted the apostle Paul who in Romans Chapter 3 said not to do evil so that good would come about. But many on these forums defend all these "liberty candidates" because "they have to to get elected."

I remember the early days of these forums (back in 07) many people stating that the reason they loved Ron Paul was because he did not compromise his principles.

Guess times have changed.

No one listens to me. It's the fucking system. Oh well.

MelissaWV
02-17-2010, 06:06 AM
Before I write this no im not a troll, im simply asking bcuz i havent looked into him really (been busy with work) and after Schiff came out with his foreign policy stuff, i dont want to be fooled again. Rand did say that stuff in support of Palin last nite, and yes it could have been a good political answer, but we all know we wouldnt give any1 else a pass for not standing up for their beliefs, why Rand? Just asking if were sure he stands with us on all the issues.

"We" don't have to be sure of Rand... you do. It sounds like you're not sure, which is a reason to hold back money/time/effort on his behalf. Others are sure, or at least have no problem with what could be described a variety of ways (lying, camouflage, pandering, etc.) so long as it gets him into office. The idea is that once he's in office, he'll show his "true colors" and start "voting properly." Even assuming all this happens, I'm not personally comfortable with it. I'm fine with other people being comfortable with it, though the myriad posts where someone says "so and so broke their campaign promise!" do run through my head. People who say one thing to get elected, then do another, are generally panned in liberty circles. I suppose there are exceptions?

Rand is, though, a huge step in the right direction even given everything you might suspect being true. One has to weigh all of that for oneself, and then decide what level of support that warrants.

itshappening
02-17-2010, 06:09 AM
In the Revolution Manifesto Ron Paul quoted the apostle Paul who in Romans Chapter 3 said not to do evil so that good would come about. But many on these forums defend all these "liberty candidates" because "they have to to get elected."

I remember the early days of these forums (back in 07) many people stating that the reason they loved Ron Paul was because he did not compromise his principles.

Guess times have changed.

Rand;s task to get into the US Senate is a lot harder than Ron's is in terms of winning a congressional seat. Rand is not compromising his principles and when he's elected he will be the best thing in the Senate without doubt. Quit complaining.

As for "all these liberty candidates" there are maybe about 4/5 with good chances in 2010 compared to 550 other evil people, so remember that they need a lot of support and we'll make some inroads

TheTyke
02-17-2010, 06:12 AM
Ron is backing incumbent Republicans for political goals. When he was running in TX, he did some of the things you guys bash Rand for. Is this evil? I don't think so. Ron has never been one to attack people.

And for the record, several of us do know Rand personally, and he's not a sellout. I sacrificed a huge amount of my life and savings so he would win - not pointlessly attack people to entertain an internet forum. I swear a bunch of you sit here looking for things to attack him on. You literally have no idea what it takes to win an election, having experience only in losing, and would be content losing until the country falls apart, as long as you could retain your holier-than-thou feeling of superiority. I'm gettin' tired of this crap.

Rand believes in liberty, and that's what he'll vote for. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be on board in the first place.

Baptist
02-17-2010, 06:14 AM
"We" don't have to be sure of Rand... you do. It sounds like you're not sure, which is a reason to hold back money/time/effort on his behalf. Others are sure, or at least have no problem with what could be described a variety of ways (lying, camouflage, pandering, etc.) so long as it gets him into office. The idea is that once he's in office, he'll show his "true colors" and start "voting properly." Even assuming all this happens, I'm not personally comfortable with it. I'm fine with other people being comfortable with it, though the myriad posts where someone says "so and so broke their campaign promise!" do run through my head. People who say one thing to get elected, then do another, are generally panned in liberty circles. I suppose there are exceptions?

Rand is, though, a huge step in the right direction even given everything you might suspect being true. One has to weigh all of that for oneself, and then decide what level of support that warrants.



Yeah, we (and most Americans) get sick of politicians telling us one thing during a campaign, and doing another when in office. Yet, that is what people here are advocating the liberty candidates do (well, they are defending the liberty candidates using this argument). I guess I'm just old fashioned and still believe that bearing false witness is wrong. Besides, what better way to discredit the liberty message in the eyes of Americans than to have liberty candidates lie to get elected?

All of the liberty candidates are too smarty. They are too smart to be "ignorant" on foreign policy or individual rights issues. So they are either a.) really do have neocon positions, or b.) they are truly liberty candidates who are tricking/lying to get into office. There is no justification for being A or B in my eyes, because both are wrong.

Baptist
02-17-2010, 06:16 AM
Ron is backing incumbent Republicans for political goals. When he was running in TX, he did some of the things you guys bash Rand for. Is this evil? I don't think so. Ron has never been one to attack people.



Yes, it is wrong. And many us were not aware of it until last month (when the video surfaced of him saying he was supporting all incumbents in Texas) and a lot of us here lost a lot of respect for Ron, myself included.

I mean come on? He is not supporting Medina!!!!!!! Give me a break. Ridiculous.

Bman
02-17-2010, 06:24 AM
Yes, it is wrong. And many us were not aware of it until last month (when the video surfaced of him saying he was supporting all incumbents in Texas) and a lot of us here lost a lot of respect for Ron, myself included.

I mean come on? He is not supporting Medina!!!!!!! Give me a break. Ridiculous.

Hell, it goes past Texas. You won't see any liberty candidates running against Republican incumbents with Ron's support. It is playing the game, and yes some of us are tired of the game, becasue if you play the game, the game continues. The game must end.

rp08orbust
02-17-2010, 06:31 AM
I mean come on? [Ron Paul] is not supporting Medina!!!!!!! Give me a break. Ridiculous.

Ron Paul has sent out emails in support of Debra Medina and her moneybombs. I also believe he recently attended one of her fundraisers.

Philmanoman
02-17-2010, 06:36 AM
How easy it must be to criticize Ron,Rand and others.

I guess the people doing the bashing,could do a much better job than Ron or Rand.

I wish I could be as wise as the critics.

Bman
02-17-2010, 06:43 AM
How easy it must be to criticize Ron,Rand and others.

I guess the people doing the bashing,could do a much better job than Ron or Rand.

I wish I could be as wise as the critics.

So if you don't like something you just sit there and play the good soldier? Plus it's free markets. I've given money to both Rand and Ron. I'm going to let them know if I'm not pleased not only from ceasing contributions but also vocally because now I'm out some money that I would have applied elsewhere.

purplechoe
02-17-2010, 06:50 AM
he's on a sinking ship if he wants to buddy up with Palin, just like Beck...

http://www.politicallore.com/images/GOP_Sinking_Ship.jpg

Philmanoman
02-17-2010, 06:51 AM
did i say sit there and play the good spoiler

all im saying is people act like...if we're gonna support you,you have to be 100% perfect in our eyes and what we think is perfect.

payme_rick
02-17-2010, 06:55 AM
Hey, I love me some RP, but I don't agree with every word and every idea the man has ever had....

IMO people like Rand are going to have to do what Rand did in what he said about Palin... ESSPECIALLY PALIN, who has been shoved from backstage onto stage as the Tea-Party leader...

Ever see that guy/gal at work that really does a poor job, that has never really done as well as everyone else at the job, but has gone high up in the company and no one has a clue as to why, or how? What's the comment we all say when we see this person, discuss this person? "Man, I wonder how much ass he/she had to kiss to get that position..."... or "how much "you know what" she had to "you know what" to get that position..."

that's just how it's gunna have to be at times...

Bman
02-17-2010, 06:55 AM
did i say sit there and play the good spoiler

all im saying is people act like...if we're gonna support you,you have to be 100% perfect in our eyes and what we think is perfect.

I'm not done supporting Ron. If he runs in 2012 I'm very likly to contribute. However, Rand is off the table, or to put it otherwise not allowed to sit at the main table for thanksgiving dinner.

Bman
02-17-2010, 06:59 AM
ESSPECIALLY PALIN

I don't think the Palin comment would be anything but icing on the cake for anyone at the moment. For me it was watching his debate last night. I think that goes for most here. It just so happens that the videos with the Palin bit is the most current and as such is where frustrations are starting to show.

Philmanoman
02-17-2010, 07:02 AM
are people so absent minded that they think someone can just go in there and say...

End the income tax!
To hell with Palin!
I wont support anyone in my own party!

...and get elected.

Seriously people think you can get elected without playing the game...go ahead see how far you get.Im not saying bend over backwards and go against everything you believe in.You have to figure out what can I say or do that will help get me in the game but at the same time not to sacrafice my core principles.

Like I said before...its easy to criticize...but can you do better.

payme_rick
02-17-2010, 07:03 AM
I don't think the Palin comment would be anything but icing on the cake for anyone at the moment. For me it was watching his debate last night. I think that goes for most here. It just so happens that the videos with the Palin bit is the most current and as such is where frustrations are starting to show.

oh... well I guess we'll just have another crappy senator in DC instead of a promising one...

dammit...

purplechoe
02-17-2010, 07:03 AM
I don't think the Palin comment would be anything but icing on the cake for anyone at the moment. For me it was watching his debate last night. I think that goes for most here. It just so happens that the videos with the Palin bit is the most current and as such is where frustrations are starting to show.

To be honest, I stopped paying attention to Rand and Peter for a few months now. I know where they stand...

MelissaWV
02-17-2010, 07:11 AM
are people so absent minded that they think someone can just go in there and say...

End the income tax!
To hell with Palin!
I wont support anyone in my own party!

...and get elected.

Seriously people think you can get elected without playing the game...go ahead see how far you get.Im not saying bend over backwards and go against everything you believe in.You have to figure out what can I say or do that will help get me in the game but at the same time not to sacrafice my core principles.

Like I said before...its easy to criticize...but can you do better.

"Can you do better" is a copout. I'm not asking you to toss money my way. If I were, I wouldn't expect that you would fund me if you disagreed with something I said regarding a subject that was very important to you.

"Playing the game" is one of the options I gave. There's a fine line there, and Ron Paul does have the marked advantage of his voting record. At this point, the man can say what he wants because I'm fairly confident he's going to VOTE in a freedom loving/preserving way. Rand is still full of question marks. All we have to go on, really, is words. No one is saying they hope Rand doesn't get elected and one of his opponents wins, but there's a decision of whether or not to actually support... and that's what's being addressed. Time and money aren't worth throwing at someone one isn't super enthused about.

Bman
02-17-2010, 07:12 AM
are people so absent minded that they think someone can just go in there and say...

End the income tax!
To hell with Palin!
I wont support anyone in my own party!

...and get elected.

Seriously people think you can get elected without playing the game...go ahead see how far you get.Im not saying bend over backwards and go against everything you believe in.You have to figure out what can I say or do that will help get me in the game but at the same time not to sacrafice my core principles.

Like I said before...its easy to criticize...but can you do better.

Not at all. It's some of his rhetoric towards personally liberties that are becoming very damaging.

1. I think you have to have a better line then saying end the income tax, because you need 1 million steps before you can get there.

2. Palin is supporting him, he obviously isn't going to trash her, and it's silly to find fault on him for issuing a complete hypathetical.

3. No ones saying that. People are saying that the best candidate should be supported, not necesarrily the one who already sits in the seat.

Look we all know that deals are made in back rooms and you have to at times walk a fine line. Some of Rand's newest stated positions on federal government that come into issue when dicussing personal liberties are far from worthy of being considered or supported by any group that wants to say they are for personal liberites.

That is the problem.

Can I do better?

Why yes I have a very good local candidate and from know on all of my money is getting directed to him.

qwerty
02-17-2010, 07:16 AM
KEEP YOUR PRINCIPLES!

I think Rand did go pretty far away from his...

Palin could be a great president. OMG!


YouTube - Sarah Palin Is JUST Another Neo-Con! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZZgBkP72jI)

YouTube - Jack Cafferty slams Sarah Palin! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73itui30qIE)

I´m not attacking against Rand, i´m actually WORRIED! With Ron Paul you allways know what you are going to hear. I can´t say that on Rand Paul so far! :(

A. Havnes
02-17-2010, 07:19 AM
he's on a sinking ship if he wants to buddy up with Palin, just like Beck...

http://www.politicallore.com/images/GOP_Sinking_Ship.jpg

Perfect example!

Kludge
02-17-2010, 07:31 AM
Palin´s rather unpopular. Frankly, I´ve suspected she attached herself to Paul specifically to cause this. Rand can´t criticize her because she´s endorsed him and has an enthusiastic base (which also will support Rand in KY,though I don´t think the enthusiastic Palinites would have opposed Rand if Palin didn´t endorse him). At the same time, if he praises her, he comes off as just another politician willing to play with the system and compromise principles for power.

As far as trusting Rand, I don´t think we should trust anyone, ever.... except maybe a love or two -- and I guess some people do claim to love RP, so..... Eh -- anyway, it´s a gamble but I think Rand is one of the best bets we have in the politics sector of the liberty movement for a win. I don´t think I have to argue here that Rand will be better than the alternatives. There are plenty of education-based organizations and campaigns out there to support where you know you´ll be doing good, and you can, of course, also spread ideas yourself.

YumYum
02-17-2010, 07:38 AM
The neocons have successfully splintered Ron Paul supporters. We followed Dr. Paul's advice and went into the Republican meetings at a local level to try and take back the Republican Party. We were not well organized, and while we initially shocked the neocons, we have failed miserably. That is because most of us are activists and not politicians. They in turn have fought fire with fire, and have destroyed what could have been a large army of Freedom fighters that Americans would have admired and eventually joined up with. Instead, they have succeeded in making backroom deals with our most trusted servants. This is very depressing.

Where is the leader that will never, ever, compromise?

Philmanoman
02-17-2010, 07:38 AM
Srry Bman...I didnt mean those as specific statements...except for the Palin one maybe,just a few off the wall examples.

I understand what youre saying.I dont have much money and even if I did I doubt I would donate to anyones campaign.So I can see where people would get upset after a few things being said that they dont agree with.They feel betrayed.

Just in my opinion,on most of the topics being discussed about Schiff and Rand,people are arguing semantics.

Ive brought this up in a post before...the Reagan Library debates '08.
Romney and McCain are arguing back n forth..."Who said time tables on withdraw from Iraq"."I didnt say time tables you said this..." blah blah blah.Then Ron Paul spoke up and said something like "Can we debate the things that are effecting this country.We should be debating monetary policy and foreign policy and things like that,not who said what on timetables".

Maybe I look at it the wrong way but most of this talk reminds me of that.I personally think it would be a better step in the right direction if Rand and Schiff got in.

Bman
02-17-2010, 07:40 AM
I don´t think I have to argue here that Rand will be better than the alternatives.

You don't have to argue that point. My point is that I'm having trouble calling him a liberty candidate. I'm not here to support Republicans. I'm here to support liberty candidates.

purplechoe
02-17-2010, 07:43 AM
Where is the leader that will never, ever, compromise?

Medina? Kokesh?

Bman
02-17-2010, 07:44 AM
Maybe I look at it the wrong way but most of this talk reminds me of that.I personally think it would be a better step in the right direction if Rand and Schiff got in.

My problem is if you give an inch you will lose a foot. I'll say it again, if I had a vote in the Kentucky Republican primary i'd vote for Rand. I'm just done calling him a liberty candidate. He can wear that Tea Party shirt as long as he wants. They've been selling out also. I'm just drawing a line. Is that what we want? Do we want to sell out? Who benefits if we sell out?

I'll tell you right now it won't be us.

itshappening
02-17-2010, 07:46 AM
Rand is going to win yet some of you would rather he be on the LP ticket and get 5%, shocking

Bman
02-17-2010, 07:53 AM
Rand is going to win yet some of you would rather he be on the LP ticket and get 5%, shocking

Rand was winning well before I heard some of what I've recently been hearing. I also have to question some of the more recent additions and past departures.

Plus you're way off base. No ones suggesting that he should run as a libertarian. All that's been suggested is that we've been duped into believing him to be a liberty candidate. Would you call Demint a liberty candidate?

Philmanoman
02-17-2010, 07:54 AM
Well I still think with the current crop of politicians and the poeples mindset in this country.Its awfully difficult to play the political game as a liberty candidate.We probably cant trust anyone...but that wont get us very far either.The mechanisms in place will have to be toppled for that to happen.Infiltration.

sofia
02-17-2010, 07:55 AM
Rand Paul is trying to win a U.S Senate seat, do you know how hard this is? it's a statewide election and he cannot be like Ron Paul for now, he has to please a lot of people to win

once he's elected, won't he still "have to please people" in order to get committee appointments, funding for re-election etc?

Where does it end? Palin is a sick twisted neo-con who said flat out she wants Obama to "declare war on Iran"....

I realize he cant attack her right now after she endorsed him....but why say something that he knows is a LIE..."Sarah could make a great president"... Thats the last thing we need is to give her even more credibiity.


Sooner or later we are going to have to confront this conniving bitch.

Bman
02-17-2010, 08:11 AM
Well I still think with the current crop of politicians and the poeples mindset in this country.Its awfully difficult to play the political game as a liberty candidate.We probably cant trust anyone...but that wont get us very far either.The mechanisms in place will have to be toppled for that to happen.Infiltration.

My question is who is infiltrating whom? They're making us bend our message. What part of their message have they bent? We're losing. It's time to reevaluate and take a stronger stand. Let these motherfuckers know we aren't going down without a serious fight.

itshappening
02-17-2010, 08:17 AM
once he's elected, won't he still "have to please people" in order to get committee appointments, funding for re-election etc?

Where does it end? Palin is a sick twisted neo-con who said flat out she wants Obama to "declare war on Iran"....

I realize he cant attack her right now after she endorsed him....but why say something that he knows is a LIE..."Sarah could make a great president"... Thats the last thing we need is to give her even more credibiity.


Sooner or later we are going to have to confront this conniving bitch.

COULD is the operative word here. She COULD if she comformed to our views or governed accordingly but that is unlikely. This is politics and Rand is playing it well

once he is elected it is for 6 years and he is beholden to nobody since all his support and donations are from individuals . Have some faith in his upbringing to know what he will be like when in office because I sure do

Bman
02-17-2010, 08:21 AM
Have some faith in his upbringing to know what he will be like when in office because I sure do

Are you? He did say they were debating whether or not he should be at the main table for thanksgiving dinner. It's family and I'm sure it was all in jest, but I personally find that a bit disturbing.

purplechoe
02-17-2010, 08:24 AM
COULD is the operative word here. She COULD if she comformed to our views or governed accordingly but that is unlikely. This is politics and Rand is playing it well

http://www.drybonesproject.com/blog/D09329_1.gif

I like to play with words too...

brandon
02-17-2010, 08:28 AM
Rand is no friend of liberty.


Supports Torture at Gitmo
Supports pre-emptive war in afghanistan
Supports federal marijuana laws and penalties
Supports federal ban of abortion
Thinks Palin would make a great president
Fired his right hand man as soon as he got an ounce of pressure from the PC media

klamath
02-17-2010, 08:31 AM
..

Bman
02-17-2010, 08:31 AM
Rand is no friend of liberty.


Supports Torture at Gitmo
Supports pre-emptive war in afghanistan
Supports federal marijuana laws and penalties
Supports federal ban of abortion
Thinks Palin would make a great president
Fired his right hand man as soon as he got an ounce of pressure from the PC media


That's the problem. That list is starting to grow and like many others here I'm not here to support Republicans. I'm here for liberty candidates.

brandon
02-17-2010, 08:33 AM
Rand is going to win yet some of you would rather he be on the LP ticket and get 5%, shocking


I don't care what ticket he is on, I'm not supporting someone who supports the bullet points I posted above.

Why is this so hard to understand? This is the Ron Paul forums after all. Remember why we were attracted to Rand's father in the first place. Rand has zero of those qualities.

silverhandorder
02-17-2010, 08:35 AM
Drama queens all of you. Why should anyone care if you like Rand or not? I think most people here can think for them selves. Want to support a local candidate? Great! Now everyone please STFU and discuss something worthwhile.

Bman
02-17-2010, 08:38 AM
Drama queens all of you. Why should anyone care if you like Rand or not? I think most people here can think for them selves. Want to support a local candidate? Great! Now everyone please STFU and discuss something worthwhile.

Yes masta!:rolleyes:

klamath
02-17-2010, 08:41 AM
..

Bman
02-17-2010, 08:42 AM
You could work for Grayson, nice distorted bullet list you put out of half truths and outright lies.

I'm not so sure. Make your case against those points. If some of us are confused end the confusion.

UtahApocalypse
02-17-2010, 08:42 AM
I am starting to agree with the sentiment here.

We DO NOT ever compromise on principles.

Many wolves in sheep's clothing have shown themselves on this board lately. Even those that were here from the beginning. Maybe they are getting burned out? Maybe they are losing faith in liberty being able to prevail?

Rand Paul, Tea Party, Schiff, Campaign for Liberty, and even a few times the man Ron Paul himself have said and done things "because its politics." It has incensed the fourms each time, and we have lost believers back to apathy and not caring when they see even our 'leadership' giving in to the temptations.


"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

That is for me the only answer. I don't care if I am fighting for liberty still in 70 years when I am a hundred years old. I will not give away ANY of my values for victory. I also have decided today not to support anyone that will.

rp08orbust
02-17-2010, 08:48 AM
Rand is no friend of liberty.


Supports Torture at Gitmo


Where has Rand said that he supports torture at Gitmo? I know he supports keeping Gitmo open for holding anyone caught in the war on terrorism (which is disturbing enough), but I haven't heard him say he's in favor of torture.



Supports pre-emptive war in afghanistan


I would add the conditions, "as long as it is declared." A piece of paper from Congress doesn't make a war just (even if it makes it Constitutional), but that appears to be Rand's position.



Supports federal marijuana laws and penalties
Supports federal ban of abortion


According to his statements in the Paducah debate, he supports any law whatsoever that restricts abortion in any way. I'm reluctantly in favor of local abortion bans under certain conditions, but Rand's blanket statement scares me.



Thinks Palin would make a great president


To be fair, he only said she could make a great president.



Fired his right hand man as soon as he got an ounce of pressure from the PC media


That doesn't bother me.

Here's another item for your list:

He is in favor of greater power for state medical licensing boards.

Immortal Technique
02-17-2010, 08:49 AM
ill wait and see how he turns out, but i cant support him while he rubs elbows with neocons in order to get elected

specsaregood
02-17-2010, 08:53 AM
Threads like this indicate to me that Rand will win. And its amazing the people that can't understand the nuances of campaign rhetoric.

UtahApocalypse
02-17-2010, 08:59 AM
Threads like this indicate to me that Rand will win. And its amazing the people that can't understand the nuances of campaign rhetoric.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

Period. End of Story. No other option. I rather loose then compromise. I am finally to the point I am really getting sick of this bullshit answer that everyone is suddenly excepting on these forums.

brandon
02-17-2010, 09:03 AM
If Paul doesn't stray any further into the neocon field, and ends up getting elected and being the Dr. No of the Senate, I will eat crow.

Somehow I don't see that happening though. As someone said on the first page, I see him becoming Demint V.2

The Deacon
02-17-2010, 09:10 AM
Palin will be a great President? Saying that is as embarrassing to thinking people as having to run around campus in your underwear to join a fraternity. That said, it's part of playing the game. You just hope the Palin connection doesn't hurt Rand in the general election, since she is extremely unpopular.

How far do you go with the PC campaigning? If Dick Cheney endorsed Rand, would Paul have to say that he would make a great president because Dick is popular with the Republican base? :o

paulitics
02-17-2010, 09:13 AM
If Paul doesn't stray any further into the neocon field, and ends up getting elected and being the Dr. No of the Senate, I will eat crow.

Somehow I don't see that happening though. As someone said on the first page, I see him becoming Demint V.2

I think he will be better than Demint, and much closer to a libertarian than a neocon. He will the best Senator we have had perhaps in my lifetime.

Still, however, he will compromise on certain issues, but I do not believe he would ever vote for unconstitutional wars, patriot act, etc.

I'm a cynic, but a pragmatist. Rand is playing the game for sure, but his overall goal is the same as ours, to restore constitutional limited government. That is what is most important. I never believed that for a second with psuedo libertarians guys like Sanford, Palin, Bachman, Beck, or even Reagan when he was in office.

Keller1967
02-17-2010, 09:13 AM
Where has Rand said that he supports torture at Gitmo? I know he supports keeping Gitmo open for holding anyone caught in the war on terrorism (which is disturbing enough), but I haven't heard him say he's in favor of torture.

I think torture is a given if you are going to have "war prisoners" at gitmo. There is not single politician who will say "I support torture" yet we know torture happens and they support it.



I would add the conditions, "as long as it is declared." A piece of paper from Congress doesn't make a war just (even if it makes it Constitutional), but that appears to be Rand's position.

Declarations don't make pre-emptive wars any better.



According to his statements in the Paducah debate, he supports any law whatsoever that restricts abortion in any way. I'm reluctantly in favor of local abortion bans under certain conditions, but Rand's blanket statement scares me.


Scares me too.



To be fair, he only said she could make a great president.


That is really grasping at straws but what really bothered me is how Rand handled himself. When Cooper asks the question Rand looks away from the camera and looks very uncomfortable then he tries to dodge the question but Cooper nails him and makes him answer it directly. Cooper knows this is a loaded question and exactly what the implications are, he wants everyone to see Rand say it on TV. When he answers it directly he looks very uncomfortable again and then he "says what he has to say" if you ask me I think we just watch Rand bend his principles under pressure in real time, he can't handle the pressure of doing what's right in the position he is seeking.

I think it is also very disturbing that Cooper brings up how father and son disagree and even foreshadows how they may be at odds against each other when they both hold political offices. I really think this is all being setup to faction us, what better way to faction the movement than to put supporters of father and son against each other? Cooper is ex-cia he knows exactly wtf he is doing when he brings up that question.

specsaregood
02-17-2010, 09:14 AM
Palin will be a great President? Saying that is as embarrassing to thinking people as having to run around campus in your underwear to join a fraternity. That said, it's part of playing the game. You just hope the Palin connection doesn't hurt Rand in the general election, since she is extremely unpopular.

Don't let the fact that he didn't actually say that stop you.

jmdrake
02-17-2010, 09:20 AM
Everyone please watch this video. I'm not saying I agree with it, or disagree with it. But I think this is where Rand is coming from.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come - G. Edward Griffin - Freedom Force International (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958#)

jmdrake
02-17-2010, 09:54 AM
I think torture is a given if you are going to have "war prisoners" at gitmo. There is not single politician who will say "I support torture" yet we know torture happens and they support it.

It doesn't have to happen that way. You should read the The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days (http://www.amazon.com/Least-Worst-Place-Guantanamos-First/dp/0195371887). The book points out the fact that, left to its own devices, our military does not torture people. The torture only started after it was ordered from the Bush administration. The same is true for Abu Grahib. The UCMJ does not allow torture of prisoners. It also does not allow coerced confessions to be used at trial. Further since 9/11 the civilian courts have had a higher conviction rate for terrorism cases than have military tribunals. The idea that somehow civilian courts will be to "soft" on terror suspects if a laughable lie. In fact I know think that Obama, who initially wanted to use tribunals, chose civilian courts because he's more likely to get a conviction of KSM there. Wouldn't that be an embarrassment if a military tribunal refused to convict Khalid Sheikh Mohammed because they felt his confession was coerced and there wasn't enough evidence outside the confession to convict him? In a military tribunal you are not allowed to plead guilty to a capital crime. Obama tried to get that changed but failed (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/us/politics/06gitmo.html).




Declarations don't make pre-emptive wars any better.


That's true. Of course Ron did vote for use of force against Afghanistan (a vote he now regrets). The question is what to do about Afghanistan now that we're there? I think Rand would still push for a declaration of war after the fact. I'm not sure how long he thinks we need to commit to that war.



Scares me too.


Apparently Rand is dealing with a constituency in KY that thinks simply repealing Roe v. Wade isn't good enough. There are some radical pro lifers who, despite the fact that Ron voted for the partial birth abortion ban, claim that Ron believes states rights means states can kill toddlers. Total nonsense of course. Rand did point out that it is "bewildering" to suggest that if he wants to pave the way to ending abortion in Kentucky that means he wants abortion in the other 49 states. I wish he had chosen better words for the type of abortion legislation he would vote for though.



That is really grasping at straws but what really bothered me is how Rand handled himself. When Cooper asks the question Rand looks away from the camera and looks very uncomfortable then he tries to dodge the question but Cooper nails him and makes him answer it directly. Cooper knows this is a loaded question and exactly what the implications are, he wants everyone to see Rand say it on TV. When he answers it directly he looks very uncomfortable again and then he "says what he has to say" if you ask me I think we just watch Rand bend his principles under pressure in real time, he can't handle the pressure of doing what's right in the position he is seeking.

I think it is also very disturbing that Cooper brings up how father and son disagree and even foreshadows how they may be at odds against each other when they both hold political offices. I really think this is all being setup to faction us, what better way to faction the movement than to put supporters of father and son against each other? Cooper is ex-cia he knows exactly wtf he is doing when he brings up that question.

Yeah. And that's the danger of the Palin endorsement. Some folks got mad at people like me for pointing this out. Sure it would have been politically bad to turn it down and I wouldn't have advised him to do that. And I hope the reports that he didn't seek out the endorsement are true. He had a double digit lead before the endorsement. And while he doesn't have to endorse Palin for 2012 per se, he'll have a tough time as a Palin critic should that become necessary. If Ron runs nobody will question him having his loyalty behind his father. But say if someone else ends up carrying the Liberty banner? If Rand doesn't care about getting re-elected it won't matter. If he does, the pressure on him to support Palin will be immense.

0zzy
02-17-2010, 10:02 AM
These forums are full of a bunch of purist who think they have nothing to lose by not supporting Rand.

You guys act as if Rand wins the world ends cause somehow another necon would be in office. Do you realize with everything you guys do say he'd still make a great Senator? gee wizz im tired of all this bickering.

rp08orbust
02-17-2010, 10:11 AM
These forums are full of a bunch of purist who think they have nothing to lose by not supporting Rand.

You guys act as if Rand wins the world ends cause somehow another necon would be in office. Do you realize with everything you guys do say he'd still make a great Senator? gee wizz im tired of all this bickering.

Speaking for myself, it's not that a Rand victory would be the end of the world (far from it), it's that such a victory is looking like less and less of a victory for liberty.

I hope Rand wins, just as I hope Jim DeMint wins reelection. Both would be allies on auditing the Fed. But after the compromises I've seen so far, my enthusiasm for Rand is not much greater than that for Jim DeMint, and it's enthusiasm that determines how much I'm willing to sacrifice for a political campaign.

The Patriot
02-17-2010, 10:15 AM
I am pretty sure. He has said he opposed the war Iraq and wants a debate on whether their is any benefit to staying in Afghanistan(code for opposing it without saying it outright).

Matthew Zak
02-17-2010, 10:21 AM
I am now 100% convinced that this forum has been overtaken by trolls.

100%.

Done with this place.

Good bye.

/deleting from bookmarks

Please delete my membership this place is useless to me.

MRoCkEd
02-17-2010, 10:24 AM
Supports Torture at Gitmo
He opposes torture, but supports keeping GITMO open until we find a way to deal with the prisoners. He wants to try them, or if they are innocent, deport them. He is opposed to indefinite detention.

Supports pre-emptive war in afghanistan
He supported a declaration of war after 9/11. Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan.

Supports federal marijuana laws and penalties
He was very unspecific on this (tactfully so) but was clear to say that he is against prison sentences for people caught with marijuana, as this is a problem that could be dealt with on a personal level through counseling.

Supports federal ban of abortion
He was kind of forced into it after people calling his state's rights position pro-choice, but nonetheless definitely said he supports federal measures to criminalize abortion. This will never happen, though, so it won't matter really.

Thinks Palin would make a great president
He was boxed in on this. He tried avoiding the question the first time, but was asked again. So he said she could make a great president. Very tactful. If he said no, he would be giving Grayson great ammo.

Fired his right hand man as soon as he got an ounce of pressure from the PC media
I was sad to see Chris go, but anything other than an immediate firing would be suicide.

Son of Detroit
02-17-2010, 10:25 AM
This thread:

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg

constituent
02-17-2010, 10:38 AM
Hell, it goes past Texas. You won't see any liberty candidates running against Republican incumbents with Ron's support. It is playing the game, and yes some of us are tired of the game, becasue if you play the game, the game continues. The game must end.

I remember someone here having an avatar of ron paul playing baseball...the intended message, or so it appeared to be, was "ron paul plays ball."

anyone remember who that was?

AParadigmShift
02-17-2010, 10:46 AM
In the Revolution Manifesto Ron Paul quoted the apostle Paul who in Romans Chapter 3 said not to do evil so that good would come about.

Well, the Apostle Paul also said he would become "all things to all men" to further his mission, yes? And if that isn't a sneaky-snake position, I don't what is.

So, what of Rand? I honestly don't know what to make of some of his positions and statements - frankly, I'm becoming unnerved. And for those who are not, I have to wonder what metric you're using to measure with? Explaining everything away to base political instinct for the win is hardly a comfort.

Regardless, discussions like these are more healthy than not, because, nobody deserves a free pass on matters of Liberty, no matter their genetic makeup.

;)

constituent
02-17-2010, 10:51 AM
I am now 100% convinced that this forum has been overtaken by trolls.

100%.

Done with this place.

Good bye.

/deleting from bookmarks

Please delete my membership this place is useless to me.

lol. right.

MelissaWV
02-17-2010, 10:54 AM
I am now 100% convinced that this forum has been overtaken by trolls.

100%.

Done with this place.

Good bye.

/deleting from bookmarks

Please delete my membership this place is useless to me.

You're giving up on the forum because people are debating the merits of a candidate? Why'd you join to begin with? I mean, not to be rude, but that seems like a primary point of debate on this kind of forum.

Kludge
02-17-2010, 10:57 AM
You're giving up on the forum because people are debating the merits of a candidate? Why'd you join to begin with? I mean, not to be rude, but that seems like a primary point of debate on this kind of forum.

Waaaaay back before RP dropped out of the GOP primary, debate was drowned out by support and activism.

AmericaFyeah92
02-17-2010, 11:04 AM
There's a video of Rand praising Murray Rothbard somewhere.

I don't think he's going to be "mainstream."

paulitics
02-17-2010, 11:06 AM
Everyone please watch this video. I'm not saying I agree with it, or disagree with it. But I think this is where Rand is coming from.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come - G. Edward Griffin - Freedom Force International (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958#)


Yep. I'm going with this too. In his heart, he wants to restore the republic back to its constitutional limits. Anyone, with half a brain cell an see this. I never got this feeling with Sanford, Palin, Reagan, etc. They are posers, where Rand is the real deal.


Some people, (as some have called trolls) do not want to restore the republic, because the see the constitution as a symbol of statism. They weren't supporters of Rand in the first place, so their primary goal is to insert doubt into the minds of those who may have given donations to Rand, or supported his campaign.

RM918
02-17-2010, 11:27 AM
You know what, there's no way to know. All I know is that he has a damn good chance of being SIGNIFICANTLY better than every other senator in existence. Why not at least give him one term? Save your complaints after you have solid evidence.

NoHero
02-17-2010, 11:27 AM
I'm a purist, and I must admit I have a few big problems with Rand's campaign rhetoric, but I still support him because: 1. I believe, at least economically, he would be better even than the libertarian candidate, and 2. I think we should start to think about incrementalism. Not sell ourselves out, but get people in who mostly believe like us. I mean I could really care less about "taking back" the republican party. Like if a Dem ran that was truly antiwar and championed liberty, while being semi-conservative fiscally, we should support that. And I think Gary Johnson would have a better shot at the Repub primary than RP in 2012 though i agree with Paul a bit more and will campaign for him if he runs, but it took 100 yrs to erode freedom and will take more than 4 to take it back without force.

klamath
02-17-2010, 11:38 AM
..

Indy Vidual
02-17-2010, 11:46 AM
Are We Sure About Rand?

PRIVACY & LIBERTY

The Federal Government must return to its constitutionally enumerated powers and restore our inalienable rights. America can prosper, preserve personal liberty, and repel national security threats without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens. ~source (http://www.randpaul2010.com/)

ARealConservative
02-17-2010, 11:49 AM
we are not collectivists.

I am sure Rand is a good person and an asset.

NoHero
02-17-2010, 12:06 PM
no you are not, you are a realist.

Well, a realist that wont relinquish my stance, but hasnt a better option. But what would you say of those thinking it is blasphemy to criticize either Paul.

jmdrake
02-17-2010, 12:10 PM
Yep. I'm going with this too. In his heart, he wants to restore the republic back to its constitutional limits. Anyone, with half a brain cell an see this. I never got this feeling with Sanford, Palin, Reagan, etc. They are posers, where Rand is the real deal.


Some people, (as some have called trolls) do not want to restore the republic, because the see the constitution as a symbol of statism. They weren't supporters of Rand in the first place, so their primary goal is to insert doubt into the minds of those who may have given donations to Rand, or supported his campaign.

Well I'm not going to go so far as to brush off anyone who raises questions as "trolls" who "do not want to restore the republic". There are legitimate concerns not just from a "purist" point of view, but also from a "is this good strategy" point of view. If a candidate is trying to be "all things to all people" there's always a risk of him painting himself in a corner. That risk is both retrospective (opponent bringing up some past statement that seems contradictory) and prospective (elected candidate now faced with either making an absurd vote or going against a campaign promise). Also I'm not convinced that Rand would lose running a different campaign. Rand had an early double digit lead back when a lot of people assumed he had a different position on certain issues than what he's now staked out. Lastly, I think people have bad experiences with the whole "Just trust him to do the right thing once elected" deal with politicians. Yeah I'll give Rand the benefit of the doubt, but that means I can't be so "high and mighty" the next time I talking with someone who's giving the benefit of the doubt to a politician I can't stand.

TruthisTreason
02-17-2010, 12:13 PM
Before I write this no im not a troll, im simply asking bcuz i havent looked into him really (been busy with work) and after Schiff came out with his foreign policy stuff, i dont want to be fooled again. Rand did say that stuff in support of Palin last nite, and yes it could have been a good political answer, but we all know we wouldnt give any1 else a pass for not standing up for their beliefs, why Rand? Just asking if were sure he stands with us on all the issues.

Yes, we can trust Rand Paul. He said Palin COULD make a great President. Hell, I could make a million dollars next year... I probably won't but I could! :p

To win an election, Rand Paul has to build coalitions of voters not isolate himself to one group of voters.

pahs1994
02-17-2010, 12:18 PM
This is why libertarians never win. They are never happy unless they are the underdog and have no chance at winning. So when one of their own actually has a shot, the natural libertarian thing to do is call the guy a mainstream hack and sink the campaign. Rand is doing everything people here were screaming for Ron to do in 2007-2008. and that is play their game by their messed up rules and do what he's gotta do to win.

Flash
02-17-2010, 12:18 PM
Once Rand enters the Senate he won't have to do anything for Palin. This includes refusing to endorse her for a 2012 run.

nayjevin
02-17-2010, 01:34 PM
I think what's lost here is that there is the 'work outside of politics' angle, and there is the 'work inside of politics' angle. You support a person working inside politics, don't be surprised that that person doesn't have the same 'purity' as a person working outside of politics.

Get in bed with politics, you get the diseases it spreads. You look for ideological purity, you find unelectability (usually). You find ideological purity outside of politics, not inside of it (usually).


"We" don't have to be sure of Rand... you do.... One has to weigh all of that for oneself, and then decide what level of support that warrants.

and ^ this

Eric21ND
02-17-2010, 01:41 PM
This is why libertarians never win. They are never happy unless they are the underdog and have no chance at winning. So when one of their own actually has a shot, the natural libertarian thing to do is call the guy a mainstream hack and sink the campaign. Rand is doing everything people here were screaming for Ron to do in 2007-2008. and that is play their game by their messed up rules and do what he's gotta do to win.
+2010 for correctness.

Brian4Liberty
02-17-2010, 01:45 PM
I am not 100% sure about any candidate.

For those who are not sure about Rand, who would I vote for in that Kentucky Primary (if I could vote in it)?

ammorris
02-17-2010, 01:50 PM
This is ridiculous. Ron Paul can say whatever he wants and not give a damn and still get elected every two years, because he is a long-term incumbent in a safe district, where people know and respect him. Rand Paul is a total unknown in the fight of his life in a Republican primary for a Senate seat in the middle of the Bible belt, against an experienced opponent who, frankly, is much more in line with the average Kentucky Republican's views on these matters, and is more than happy to use Rand's Libertarian leanings--and his father's record--as a bludgeon against him in this decidedly un-libertarian state. When his opponent comes out and says that Rand Paul supports killing toddlers, wants children to smoke marijuana, and would drop terrorists back off on the battlefield, Rand has to respond and convince the voters otherwise, because failure to do so would sink his campaign in a matter of days.

Rand is not sacrificing his principles; he is couching them in terms that will appeal to voters who had no interest in Ron Paul but would vote for Sarah Palin in a heartbeat. In that sense, he has a much harder job than Ron, Kokesh, Schiff, or any of our other candidates, who can afford to come out swinging on things like drug legalization and closing Gitmo because it won't hurt them politically. He is walking a tightrope, and doing a damn good job of it. Why are some of you so intent on knocking him off?

Toureg89
02-17-2010, 02:00 PM
i haven't been keeping up with the Rand campaign. any links to youtube vids depiction neocon statements made by Rand?

nm.
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/12150.aspx

AmericaFyeah92
02-17-2010, 02:26 PM
For pure anarcho-capitalists, Rand isn't exactly a dream come true. But he's a MAJOR step in the right direction

LibertyMage
02-17-2010, 02:46 PM
This is ridiculous. Ron Paul can say whatever he wants and not give a damn and still get elected every two years, because he is a long-term incumbent in a safe district, where people know and respect him. Rand Paul is a total unknown in the fight of his life in a Republican primary for a Senate seat in the middle of the Bible belt, against an experienced opponent who, frankly, is much more in line with the average Kentucky Republican's views on these matters, and is more than happy to use Rand's Libertarian leanings--and his father's record--as a bludgeon against him in this decidedly un-libertarian state. When his opponent comes out and says that Rand Paul supports killing toddlers, wants children to smoke marijuana, and would drop terrorists back off on the battlefield, Rand has to respond and convince the voters otherwise, because failure to do so would sink his campaign in a matter of days.

Rand is not sacrificing his principles; he is couching them in terms that will appeal to voters who had no interest in Ron Paul but would vote for Sarah Palin in a heartbeat. In that sense, he has a much harder job than Ron, Kokesh, Schiff, or any of our other candidates, who can afford to come out swinging on things like drug legalization and closing Gitmo because it won't hurt them politically. He is walking a tightrope, and doing a damn good job of it. Why are some of you so intent on knocking him off?

Well put. Here is an answer to your question:

http://www.fr33agents.com/2311/cheap-talk-group-dynamics-how-libertarians-fail/


Cheap Talk & Group Dynamics: How Libertarians Fail
By
Paul Rosenberg
Published: 16 February 2010Posted in: Intel, Minor features, Top featuresTags: activism, cheap talk, groupthink, libertarianism, liberty, liberty movement, sectarianism

There have been many noble, even brilliant, movements toward liberty: Good people pursuing good ideas. Yet, most of them go down in flames, and usually for the same reasons.

TALK IS CHEAP

It’s a lot easier to talk than to do.

Most libertarians want to talk – endlessly and exclusively. They seldom have any enthusiasm for taking concrete actions. They are always waiting for people in the future to listen to their gems of wisdom; then, once properly enlightened, those people will do something.

This is not only a gigantic error, but it is cowardly. If you believe in something, then act on it. And if you don’t act, how much do you really believe?

Doers look for ways to avoid fighting and to get busy making things. Talkers fight about words – over and over and over.

When talkers are in the majority, they destroy the work of the doers: This is the history of the libertarians.

MY TEAM RULES!

“My team versus your team” is a function of insecurity and a strange type of belief in magic. Here’s how:

The insecurity issue is fairly simple: A huge number of people get their self-esteem from their political opinions. This is obviously an error, since self-esteem must come from “self,” not from others, but a huge number of people do it. Once people do this for a while, they become hardened in it.

In this condition, opposing opinions (or even differing opinions) become not just foreign, but threats… serious threats. After all, if you’ve spent decades tying your most basic opinions of yourself to political causes and doctrines, changing them becomes something akin to tearing off a piece of your soul.

The belief in magic I refer to goes back to Plato, and involves the belief that if everyone would hold to your pristine ideals, the world would magically heal itself. The most obvious examples of this have come in odd episodes such as the “Kite Fly For Peace,” or the “Harmonic Convergence,” but this occurs in many ways every day.

WHAT IS THE GOAL?

What is the goal of your “work for liberty”? We all say, “liberty, of course,” but there may be other things mixed in. This is a very common issue, and we should pay attention to it.

We all have multiple goals. For one, almost all of us enjoy other people thinking well of us. For another, all of us (especially at a certain age) wish to attract a good mate. The older of us have special concerns for children and grandchildren. These things never entirely leave our minds, nor should they, but they do complicate matters.

There is nothing unusual or bad about having multiple and even slightly conflicting purposes; this is simply the common state of humanity. It is when we close our eyes to it that problems arise.

If you are for liberty, then work for liberty, and don’t let secondary differences get mixed up in the work. If another person sees the logical foundation of property rights differently that you do, let it go – it doesn’t matter. He can see it his way and you can see it yours. Just keep working for liberty.

The truth is that we all modify our opinions over time. You’ll modify yours and so will today’s ideological adversary. Keep moving forward and keep making a better world. Ten years from now you may see things the same… and liberty will be far, far more advanced if you don’t devote most of your time and energy to defeating each other.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE INTERNET

I think I have to be considered a wild advocate of the Internet. But, the Internet has caused some problems too, and especially as regards group dynamics and sectarianism.

Years ago I wrote a little series of essays for myself, entitled Closed-Circuit Thinking, mostly as a way of clarifying my own thoughts. In it, I addressed the problems that arise when groups of people listen to no voices but their own. As it turns out, I wasn’t the only person thinking along these lines. There is now a considerable body of work of the subject, generally classified as Group Polarization. It works this way:

When a group of people with the same opinion remains in a single room, that opinion moves inevitably to the extreme.

Many tests have been done, with widely-varied groups, and it happens every time.

The reason for this is what psychologists call Individuation: the need to be seen as a distinct individual, not merely as another drone in the hive.

The more outgoing people in any group will always struggle to make their voices heard above the din. To be regarded, one must have something different to say. And, since everyone in the room already holds the same opinion, the logical move is to take the opinion a bit farther than it has already gone. (Taking it away from the extreme would make you appear impure, weak, compromising, or otherwise unfaithful to the group.)

People in such self-contained groups get more and more polarized, and ever-harsher toward groups that they see as their opponents.

The problem with Internet is that it allows you to surround yourself with people of a single opinion 24/7. This technology-enabled, Group Polarization effect delivers binary, us/them opinions, highly-emotional public clashes, and the demonization of outsiders.

ACCEPT IT

Groups do evolve in this way, whether we like it or not. It remains up to us to acknowledge it, transcend clannish instincts and serve primary goals rather than separating into self-congratulatory cloisters. Let the unimportant slights pass – keep your eye on the prize. Accept the fact that life can be sloppy and keep moving forward.

IT’S UP TO YOU

Act and change the world, or fight about details and pretend that it will matter someday.

Pick one.

Arklatex
02-17-2010, 03:12 PM
I may the the only one, but I agree with Ron Paul damn near 100%

It's amazing.
I would have supported him if it were just 30% because that's way more than anyone else.