Are some Paul supporters too... "slow" to understand Rand and/or are some "disinfo"?

[SolusSLX]

Some people seem incapable of understanding the nuances (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuances) of Rand's position statements. Are they really too slow to understand what Rand is saying?

They make emotional assumptions and jump to conclusions. Sometimes even when (I think) things are clearly explained they still don't understand.

Is anyone really that... "slow"?

Some people just haven't looked into things for themselves and are ignorant of the facts, perhaps because they don't have time to research everything, but they assume that what they hear is true and repeat it. I guess this is what the MSNBC guys are depending on when they attack Rand. I suppose even Paul supporters fall to this tactic.

Some people seem like they're willfully not understanding things and are misrepresenting Rand's positions, sometimes even when clearly explained. Are they real "disinformation agents" or something? This seems exactly like the media use, they do a thorough interview and then distort everything. How could they not know what they are doing? "To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth."

What motivates such people to tell such obvious lies?

People have called Rand Paul a "racist (http://media.photobucket.com/image/thats%20racist/cascy128/th_thats_racist.gif)", others call him a "zionist under the control of neocons", when these things are obviously not true to someone who is able to understand what Rand is actually talking about.

Are some Ron Paul supporters really that mentally slow or what? I don't get it.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Get real. (unless you are going to link a post that warrants a retraction)

1. Racism is collectivism and libertarians oppose collectivism on principle because libertarians view the world as a bunch of individuals operating in the market not groups of people.

2. Non-Intervention includes ending aid to Israel not just all other Arab nations. Actually libertarians often talk about ending aid to all nations.

3. Libertarians love business but do comment on crony capitalism much other than to point out how crony it is.

4. Libertarians love the concept of self ownership and property rights.

No honest libertarian believes Rand is racist, zionist, or corporatist. If they are I have no doubt the BANHAMMER will crush them.

So let's get to what has really been going on (excluding any new jerks that recently signed up to stir the pot). Ron Paul supporters have been criticizing Rand for being "less" libertarian. Is there any argument on that point?

So we have one side that is saying they are not all that excited Rand is turning out to be less libertarian than Ron. Well that is perfectly understandable considering most Ron Paul supporters are pretty principled people. During the whole Ron Paul campaign we always said it was the message not the man.

Now on the other side we have the political fanatics saying... would you please get off Rand's ass and give him a chance. That is also a perfectly understandable position.

The compromise is: One side needs to get off Rand's ass and the other side needs to exercise restraint and not push Rand off as a figurehead for the Ron Paul revolution. The dust will settle and everyone will be smiling again in no time. The dust has already settled for the most part.

Actually if you want to dust to settle why are you stirring it creating a new thread?

[SolusSLX]

Ok, to better phrase what I want to find out would be:

Why do some people (including the media and among us people who support Ron Paul) appear to not understand what Rand Paul's actual positions are?

I propose that the answer we come to will include several reasons:

- Those that unintentionally misinterpret Rand Paul's position statements. This is the main understanding that I seek and the reason I wanted to make a forum thread.

- Those that believe what someone else intentionally misinterpreted.

- Those that intentionally misinterpret Rand Paul's position statements in order to discredit him. Such as the media and "disinformation agents".


I want to understand how a person that has misinterpreted someone else's position thinks and what their thought processes are that lead them to misinterpreting that position so that we can find a way to help people not misinterpret positions.

That is my intention. Maybe I will start a new thread with a better topic statement.


So how can I go about finding that out?

To do that I suppose I will have to discuss what I believe are misinterpretations of Rand Paul's stated positions/views. Perhaps I should make a new different thread for this too.


Thank you for commenting Live_Free_Or_Die! I will attempt to discuss the above with you to try to find out if, and how, me or you may have misinterpreted Rand Paul's positions/views.



Ron Paul supporters have been criticizing Rand for being "less" libertarian. Is there any argument on that point?

There is no argument, I agree that Rand Paul is "less" libertarian.


Although what exactly does "libertarian" mean though? Do all libertarians (collectively?) agree that it means the same thing, and thus can agree that someone is "more" or "less" libertarian?

You seem to propose:


1. Racism is collectivism and libertarians oppose collectivism on principle because libertarians view the world as a bunch of individuals operating in the market not groups of people.

2. Non-Intervention includes ending aid to Israel not just all other Arab nations. Actually libertarians often talk about ending aid to all nations.

3. Libertarians love business but do comment on crony capitalism much other than to point out how crony it is.

4. Libertarians love the concept of self ownership and property rights.

I agree that these are "libertarian".

I don't believe that anything that has been truthfully attributed to be Rand Paul's views/position has violated any of those principles that you list.


Aside aside:

3. Libertarians love business but do comment on crony capitalism much other than to point out how crony it is.

Did you mean "don't comment on crony capitalism much"? Is this in reference to a comment that Rand Paul made related to BP? If so then let's consider this as one possible misunderstanding and collect facts to find out.

I strongly believe Rand Paul is not necessarily much "less" libertarian than Ron Paul. I strongly believe this because from what I have seen the "vast majority" of his position statements have never directly contradicted what I believe to be the libertarian philosophy of Ron Paul. See (1)



I think it's fine to criticize Rand Paul for being "less" libertarian. (However, I believe that it is slightly hypocritical to criticize Rand Paul for being "less" libertarian, IF that person did not criticize Ron Paul just as strongly for being "less" libertarian. But this is irrelevant to the current topic.)


The reason I made this thread is because I believe that most people on these forums that are criticizing Rand Paul for being "less" libertarian are doing so because they have unintentionally misinterpreted his views/positions and are criticizing him for things he does not believe. And I want to find out how they came to their misinterpretation.

I propose that these misinterpretations come from Rand Paul's positions not clearly stating the exact same things that Ron Paul has said, most of which I believe clearly and fully state libertarian positions.

(1) I believe that -^ because it appears to me that Rand Paul's position statements have left out the aspects of Ron Paul's positions that can be misinterpreted and used to dishonestly smear Rand Paul, while not implying that Rand Paul disagrees with Ron Paul's positions or most libertarian philosophy, and are at least as libertarian as most of Ron Paul's positions. I strongly believe that this is necessary for the campaign because we are facing a powerful media-government-etc-industrial complex machine that will grab on to anything that can be misinterpreted and used to dishonestly smear Rand Paul or any other libertarians that attempt to run for office.




Now on the other side we have the political fanatics saying... would you please get off Rand's ass and give him a chance. That is also a perfectly understandable position.

The compromise is: One side needs to get off Rand's ass and the other side needs to exercise restraint and not push Rand off as a figurehead for the Ron Paul revolution. The dust will settle and everyone will be smiling again in no time. The dust has already settled for the most part.

Actually if you want to dust to settle why are you stirring it creating a new thread?

I am not saying for anyone to get "off" (or "on") Rand's ass, or even to give him a chance. I want to understand why misinterpretations happen and how they can be reduced, and I hope I have clarified that with this post.

My interest is understanding and truth and the spreading of such, not blind political fanaticism of one way or the other.

Thank you and take care!