Rand Paul questioned about Bilderberger

[JK/SEA]

http://www.infowars.com/rand-paul-confronted-on-bilderberg-no-comment-on-logan-act-violations/

and this one


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvWffdrIDEI&feature=relmfu

[Indy Vidual]

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

[JK/SEA]

Was this story of Romney visiting the Bilderberg Conference true?....any evidence like video or pics?

[DamianTV]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvWffdrIDEI&feature=relmfu
(same video as above, just embedded)

I think this video reveals Rand Paul's betrayal more than anything else. He KNOWS damn well what the Bilderberger Group is and what their intentions are. And he turns around and endorses Romney, who has been seen at the Bilderberger Meetings.

I've never really any support for Rand. He is everything that his father is not. Im not gonna make excuses for the guy, nor do I find what he has done acceptable by any measure. But Im not here supporting Ron Paul because of Rand's actions. And I can not allow myself to falter when Ron has been obviously stabbed in the back by his own son.

Ron is probably personally devestated by this. And I think we need to show Ron more support now than ever before, lest we betray our principles and the man that carries our banner for what he has done for us already.

[Mini-Me]

Nevermind, I went in assuming the interview was Rand playing dumb about the Bilderbergers and wrote a response to your post on that assumption. Stupid me. :p

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvWffdrIDEI&feature=relmfu
(same video as above, just embedded)

I think this video reveals Rand Paul's betrayal more than anything else. He KNOWS damn well what the Bilderberger Group is and what their intentions are. And he turns around and endorses Romney, who has been seen at the Bilderberger Meetings.

I've never really any support for Rand. He is everything that his father is not. Im not gonna make excuses for the guy, nor do I find what he has done acceptable by any measure. But Im not here supporting Ron Paul because of Rand's actions. And I can not allow myself to falter when Ron has been obviously stabbed in the back by his own son.

Ron is probably personally devestated by this. And I think we need to show Ron more support now than ever before, lest we betray our principles and the man that carries our banner for what he has done for us already.

The video doesn't necessarily show Rand's betrayal. There are two sides to every story. It could be that he knows about the Bilderberg meetings and opposes it, but he endorsed Mitt Romney in order to further his own political career and effect change once he gets to a position where he can make a significant difference. There is a big difference between sincerely endorsing Mitt Romney and everything he is about, and throwing the GOP a bone by saying he will back the GOP nominee because that's what they expect him to do. He knows Romney is part of the Bilderberg meeting and he endorsed him, but that doesn't mean he supports him or the Bilderberg's agendas.

It doesn't have to be betrayal, so stop telling such a one-sided story of it. Ron Paul enorsed someone who he doesn't agree with, too. You may not like it, but don't act like you know for sure why he did it because you don't.

Some people on here seem so clueless as to what's really happening that they still post videos about the supposed contradiction between Rand opposing Bilderberg and Rand endorsing Romney. Even the most simple simpleton can tell that he's playing both sides. The reasons for this are what are at issue, not that he is doing it. The fact that he is playing both sides does not automatically mean he is a hypocrite. It means he has a specific goal in mind, and that goal is what we are not sure about.

[JK/SEA]

Don't kill the messenger. My feeling is more info on Rand and his 'decisions' should be discussed, and this hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil mentality around here on the forum has me perplexed. You may not agree with me that i think Rand is not who 'we' think he is IS my opinion, and buyer beware.

Thanks for the insults. Insulting people just shows me that Rand cheerleaders are not really 'sure' about Rand. I have a name for it....Randaphobia.

[donnay]

The video doesn't necessarily show Rand's betrayal. There are two sides to every story. It could be that he knows about the Bilderberg meetings and opposes it, but he endorsed Mitt Romney in order to further his own political career and effect change once he gets to a position where he can make a significant difference. There is a big difference between sincerely endorsing Mitt Romney and everything he is about, and throwing the GOP a bone by saying he will back the GOP nominee because that's what they expect him to do. He knows Romney is part of the Bilderberg meeting and he endorsed him, but that doesn't mean he supports him or the Bilderberg's agendas.

It doesn't have to be betrayal, so stop telling such a one-sided story of it. Ron Paul enorsed someone who he doesn't agree with, too. You may not like it, but don't act like you know for sure why he did it because you don't.

Some people on here seem so clueless as to what's really happening that they still post videos about the supposed contradiction between Rand opposing Bilderberg and Rand endorsing Romney. Even the most simple simpleton can tell that he's playing both sides. The reasons for this are what are at issue, not that he is doing it. The fact that he is playing both sides does not automatically mean he is a hypocrite. It means he has a specific goal in mind, and that goal is what we are not sure about.


It also means some of Ron Paul's ardent supporters (not followers as Rand said) are going to dig deep and start questioning who are the advisers in the Campaign for Liberty.

We already know Doug Wead was Special Assistant to U.S. President George H. W. Bush. Neocon
Bruce Fein is associated with AEI (William Kristol's new PNAC organization). Neocon.

The Campaign for Liberty has been neoconned!

[NoOneButPaul]

I can't wait to see the logical loops people run around in their minds after Ron endorses Romney at the convention.

[Occam's Banana]

It also means some of Ron Paul's ardent supporters (not followers as Rand said) are going to dig deep and start questioning who are the advisers in the Campaign for Liberty.

We already know Doug Wead was Special Assistant to U.S. President George H. W. Bush. Neocon
Bruce Fein is associated with AEI (William Kristol's new PNAC organization). Neocon.

The Campaign for Liberty has been neoconned!

A witch! A witch! (Rand Paul turned me into a newt ...)

[JK/SEA]

I can't wait to see the logical loops people run around in their minds after Ron endorses Romney at the convention.

If that happens, i will have come full circle. Going from an anti-war liberal, to a Ron Paul policy advocate, and maybe back to an anti-war liberal.....haha

[LibertyEagle]

I think this video reveals Rand Paul's betrayal more than anything else. He KNOWS damn well what the Bilderberger Group is and what their intentions are. And he turns around and endorses Romney, who has been seen at the Bilderberger Meetings.

I've never really any support for Rand. He is everything that his father is not. Im not gonna make excuses for the guy, nor do I find what he has done acceptable by any measure. But Im not here supporting Ron Paul because of Rand's actions. And I can not allow myself to falter when Ron has been obviously stabbed in the back by his own son.

Ron is probably personally devestated by this. And I think we need to show Ron more support now than ever before, lest we betray our principles and the man that carries our banner for what he has done for us already.

What are you talking about? What he said about the Bilderberg group was spot on. How could you have a problem with that?

[LibertyEagle]

It also means some of Ron Paul's ardent supporters (not followers as Rand said) are going to dig deep and start questioning who are the advisers in the Campaign for Liberty.

We already know Doug Wead was Special Assistant to U.S. President George H. W. Bush. Neocon
Bruce Fein is associated with AEI (William Kristol's new PNAC organization). Neocon.

The Campaign for Liberty has been neoconned!

Bruce Fein was a member of AEI back before it was taken over by the neocons, Donnay. And people on this very forum clamored for Doug Wead to be hired by the PCC. I would imagine because of interviews we all saw of Mr. Wead speaking highly of Ron Paul during the last campaign.

You are being completely ridiculous. Oh, and Donnay, these guys are advisors to the PCC; not the C4L.

[AuH20]

I can't wait to see the logical loops people run around in their minds after Ron endorses Romney at the convention.

Yup. These fruit loops won't even consider that Ron brokered Rand's consent on all this. After being in the game for so long, Ron sees this war for minds as a marathon and not a sprint. He knows how close they are. Rand is an excellent communicator and can transcend the liberty movement in ways Ron couldn't dream of. Ron was horrible with numbers and details, and this severely hampered his ability to draw in potential voters.

[donnay]

Bruce Fein was a member of AEI back before it was taken over by the neocons, Donnay. And people on this very forum clamored for Doug Wead to be hired by the PCC. I would imagine because of interviews we all saw of Mr. Wead speaking highly of Ron Paul during the last campaign.

You are being completely ridiculous. Oh, and Donnay, these guys are advisors to the PCC; not the C4L.

Read this and tell me how ridiculous I am. I trust Sibel Edmonds since she is a whistleblower.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/08/30/the-greatest-plot-against-the-ron-paul-camp-to-date/

[brushfire]

I've been thinking things over:

I see the establishment elitists as beeing well resourced. The system is saturated from the media, all the way down to the county conventions. They are EVERYWHERE.
I'm waiting to see what pans out from this endorsement, but has anyone considered it as an effective means of attack? Do we do this out, in the open, head on? Or through more covert, unconventional means? What happened to keeping your enemies even closer?

Not to debate over Ron Paul's effectiveness to date, but would he have been more effective if he was a DeMint type republican, working from within (vs the outsider)?

I see what's happening as being very uncharacteristic, when taking Rand's actions at face value. If it is a ploy, it may very well be the most effective means of overtaking the establishment. If its got supporters up in arms, it must have the establishment buying in too...

All things considered, all we can really do is wait and watch anyway. Why write off the Paul's now? I would ask the allies of freedom to watch carefuly, but not jump to conclusions so quickly.

[Chrysamere]

Read this and tell me how ridiculous I am. I trust Sibel Edmonds since she is a whistleblower.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/08/30/the-greatest-plot-against-the-ron-paul-camp-to-date/

You are being pretty ridiculous, you're as fucking paranoid as I was when I smoked three joints a day.

Just because people don't think exactly like you or do what you want them to do doesn't mean they work for the devil, something you and the list of people in your signature have a very hard time comprehending.

[PaulConventionWV]

It also means some of Ron Paul's ardent supporters (not followers as Rand said) are going to dig deep and start questioning who are the advisers in the Campaign for Liberty.

We already know Doug Wead was Special Assistant to U.S. President George H. W. Bush. Neocon
Bruce Fein is associated with AEI (William Kristol's new PNAC organization). Neocon.

The Campaign for Liberty has been neoconned!

That makes a lot of sense. The whole campaign has been neoconned because two people whom you arbitrarily label as neocons are involved with it.

Guilt by association much?

[LibertyEagle]

Read this and tell me how ridiculous I am. I trust Sibel Edmonds since she is a whistleblower.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/08/30/the-greatest-plot-against-the-ron-paul-camp-to-date/

I read that stuff from her way back when she made those claims and it was soundly refuted on these very forums. She has a bone to pick with Fein, because Fein exposed her on a couple of issues. Do a search. You should be able to find it. It was also on The Daily Paul.

[PaulConventionWV]

You are being pretty ridiculous, you're as fucking paranoid as I was when I smoked three joints a day.

Just because people don't think exactly like you or do what you want them to do doesn't mean they work for the devil, something you and the list of people in your signature have a very hard time comprehending.

I agree, but it's unfair for you to speak that way of AF and others in Donnay's sig list. They are talking about very important subjects that are relevant. Thinking we live in a police state isn't paranoia, it's the frikkin truth.

[kcchiefs6465]

Ron was horrible with numbers and details and this severely hampered his ability to draw in potential voters.
What??? Numbers and details? COMPARED TO WHO? Ron Paul is the only one that doesn't do the usual "Change Will Come," "I See America as the Little House on the Hill" bullshit rhetoric. HE IS THE ONLY ONE GIVING NUMBERS, FACTS, DETAILS! I am actually amazed to see Ron Paul speak, his mind moving a million miles a hour, trying to explain in the simplest way possible, to the simplest people possible i.e. YOU, how we have been conditioned to be robbed of wealth. TF are you talking about? And another thing, should Ron Paul endorse this coroprate facist of a tumor, Romney (which he won't), his legacy will be forever tainted. You might see this as Rand Paul maneuvering for political clout, but the fact of the matter is, he lost support. Sure, he gained the rhetoric loving neocons, but what the fuck good is that? Do you really think Goldman Sachs won't have a brand new slogan for THEIR choice in 2016? Do you really think those who are that easily swayed by someone endorsing the status quo not to be swayed yet again? The last few questions are for those who support Rand Paul's endorsement, as I am fairly certain you are incapable of comprehending a damn thing I said.

[donnay]

That makes a lot of sense. The whole campaign has been neoconned because two people whom you arbitrarily label as neocons are involved with it.

Guilt by association much?


Ted Cruz was endorsed by Dr. Paul. Yet, Ted Cruz refused to endorse Dr. Paul. Lot's of compromises have come out of the camp here of late. I am calling them as I see them...connecting the dots so to speak.

[Chrysamere]

I agree, but it's unfair for you to speak that way of AF and others in Donnay's sig list. They are talking about very important subjects that are relevant. Thinking we live in a police state isn't paranoia, it's the frikkin truth.

Oh it is truth, and some of them contribute in very important ways, especially JFK who posts some very interesting and important reads during his spamming sprees. But it seems like they see every person who doesn't do exactly what they think they should do as an illuminati socialist nwo bilderberg neocon agent bent on wiping out 90% of the human race so they can control everyone.

[jmdrake]

Oh it is truth, and some of them contribute in very important ways, especially JFK who posts some very interesting and important reads during his spamming sprees. But it seems like they see every person who doesn't do exactly what they think they should do as an illuminati socialist nwo bilderberg neocon agent bent on wiping out 90% of the human race so they can control everyone.

Disingenuous argument by you is disingenuous. Donnay didn't raise a question about Bruce Fein because he disagrees with Bruce Fein. He raised a question about Bruce Fein because someone he gives credibility to (Sibel Edmonds) raised questions about Bruce Fein. And since the Pauls have now done the unthinkable (Rand endorsed Romney and Ron remains silent about that) those questions are worth asking. Are we co-opting the establishment or is the establishment co-opting us? I think it's the former, but it would be unwise to rule out the possibility of the latter.

[Mini-Me]

If that happens, i will have come full circle. Going from an anti-war liberal, to a Ron Paul policy advocate, and maybe back to an anti-war liberal.....haha

If a person's endorsement disappoints you so much to actually make you reconsider the principles and views in your heart with respect to the role of government, it's a sign you're coming at things from an emotional point of view and not a rational one. The principles stand on their own. Besides, we already know that Ron Paul has endorsed Lamar Smith in the past (possibly for a return courtesy endorsement, which Ron may have needed more than Lamar), and Lamar Smith is one of the worst Congressmen alive...or ever. He made this endorsement after epic stands for liberty, and before even more epic stands for liberty. A crappy endorsement wouldn't be a sudden turn or shocking betrayal from him...it's simply an area where even he has chosen to "play the game" at times and "live to fight another day," but it hardly means he genuinely supports Smith's ideas. I don't think it will happen with Romney, since Ron is retiring and he would only do it for Rand's benefit, but I'd brace myself anyway, just in case. No matter how much you may disagree with a move like that, it's not really sensible to think a "They're treating me fine" speech invalidates the man's entire worldview (Constitutionalism and libertarianism). Not only do I think people are being unfairly quick to damn someone, but the principles stand on their own.

I agree with being critical of people like Rand when they pull stupid political maneuvers instead of speaking truth to power like Patrick Henry. That's fair game. "I won't support him until he cleans up his act and earns my support again." Fair enough. I like battle cries better than politicking too, and I don't believe in "go along to get along" either, but I'm not going to crucify an ally for the crime of picking their battles. There's a difference between criticism and caution and no-holds-barred condemnation and verbal charges of treason. "He's shown his true colors! He's just an NWO scumbag, and I can't believe I ever fell for this liberty crap! I'm taking my ball and going home!" I'm seeing far too much of the latter sentiment for someone who single-handedly filibustered the Patriot Act, and now we have people becoming so disillusioned they're rethinking limited government entirely (and not in favor of anarchism, but statism)?

Emotions are WAY too high here, and emotions are the bane of critical thinking when you let them control you. Control your passions and channel them into the areas you've rationally decided to be the most useful. Drink a beer. Smoke a joint if that's your thing (bonus points for passive resistance). Exercise. Do whatever it takes to constructively work off the anger and bring back your zen, because there are more destructive knee-jerk emotional comments than I'd expect if Hannity and Maddow asked their viewers to make this "sabotage week." If your head is spinning and you're not posting from an even keel emotionally, you're not thinking clearly. There's a time to be angry and bloodthirsty, but that time is when you know without any doubt that you're staring in the face of an enemy.

[JK/SEA]

Emotions are part of being human. I'm not a Vulcan. I have been around the block more than once, had doors slammed shut on me and vice-a-versa, had my foot in the grave once, protested the Vietnam, Kuwait, and Iraq wars, voted for Clinton twice...(dems were perceived as anti-war) saw Obama speak in 2006 and was ready to campaign for him...then....Ron Paul entered my world. Still love Ron, but now i'm becoming jaded towards this liberty idea because of Rand..his fucking SON...Lamar Smith is not Ron Pauls SON. Stop using that shield like its supposed to somehow make everything better. Rand Paul....yeah...whatever....i'm still involved..barely. I just got elected AGAIN as my precinct PCO. I think there is a new strategy afoot with regards to PCO's, but i'm not sure that i'm supposed to know anything..its all stealth don't ya know.

So, color me a shade of apathetic gray.

[Mini-Me]

Emotions are part of being human. I'm not a Vulcan. I have been around the block more than once, had doors slammed shut on me and vice-a-versa, had my foot in the grave once, protested the Vietnam, Kuwait, and Iraq wars, voted for Clinton twice...(dems were perceived as anti-war) saw Obama speak in 2006 and was ready to campaign for him...then....Ron Paul entered my world. Still love Ron, but now i'm becoming jaded towards this liberty idea because of Rand..his fucking SON...Lamar Smith is not Ron Pauls SON. Stop using that shield like its supposed to somehow make everything better. Rand Paul....yeah...whatever....i'm still involved..barely. I just got elected AGAIN as my precinct PCO. I think there is a new strategy afoot with regards to PCO's, but i'm not sure that i'm supposed to know anything..its all stealth don't ya know.

So, color me a shade of apathetic gray.

I know that emotions are a part of being human. Even Spock had some, and he was only PART human. ;) The real question is whether you can control and channel them, or whether you let them fall into disarray and dominate you against your better judgment.

I'm not understanding what you mean by "Lamar Smith is not Ron Paul's son." I mean, I understand the meaning in the literal sense, but I don't see what you're getting at. The point is that Ron has made horrendous endorsements in the past, but it hasn't stopped him from otherwise being a great champion of liberty. We've been cool with him, even looked up to him, for all this time despite his awful endorsements, but now we're sending Rand to the hangman for doing the same thing, and we're threatening to do the same to Ron if he does it again. I'm not sure why it's especially relevant to this issue that Rand is Ron's son...the point is that we're applying a harsher standard to him than we have to Ron, and instead of taking a step back and reassessing the fairness of that standard, we're going back and rethinking, "Hey, now that we're done with Rand, let's wait for an excuse to ditch Ron, too." That's not really sensible.

The irony here is that no politician on Earth has ever played politics LESS than Ron. We mistakenly thought for a time that meant he never did it at all, and we set the bar based on that myth. Now that we're seeing he's made exceptions for political reasons and may continue to do so (and it's plainly apparent that Rand is willing to do it a bit more), you're all of a sudden half-ready to ditch everything you believe in and go back to being an anti-war liberal, just to spite him? As if the politicians most dear to anti-war liberals were somehow better in this category? Not only did Kucinich endorse Obama, but he wasn't speaking through his teeth to protect himself from attack and hoping his supporters would ignore him. He actually MEANT it, and he actually meant for his supporters to go out and vote for him, fully knowing Obama was a corporatist. (At least Rand knew up front we'd rather wipe our asses with his hair and say goodbye than vote for Romney on his say-so. He probably didn't realize how eager we were to smear our poo on his face and get some up his nose and in his mouth, but I digress.) Even then, it doesn't make Kucinich a bad guy: It means he made a mistake. (It's his political views that make him a bad guy. Half kidding. :p)

What's happening here is that you are applying an impeccable standard of "no bullshit" behavior to Ron and especially Rand that no politician in this history of the world has ever lived up to, yet you wouldn't have even thought to apply such a standard to anyone if it wasn't for Ron Paul in the first place. As you've indicated from your previous votes and support, you never applied that particular standard to anyone in the past. If you return to anti-war liberal views, would you continue applying that standard in the future? I think it's perfectly reasonable to push for perfection and remind/criticize people when they fall short...but it's not reasonable to expect it to such a degree that you become seriously disillusioned when someone doesn't reach it, in a world where no one ever has. That's just spiting yourself and setting yourself up for crushing disappointment.

That's not to say that I'm using anything as a shield to say, "everything's okay." Everything's not okay, and I'm upset with Rand too - even though I understand his reasons - but everyone else has done more than enough venting for me to see any point in piling on. (Actually, I'm less upset about the endorsement itself and more upset that he should have known it would inflame our latent trust issues. Stupid, stupid, stupid.) I'm also nervous about how Ron has been handling things lately, because I know I'd personally do things differently. I'm not trying to say, "You're not allowed to feel disappointment," because that's normal, and almost everyone feels it. I'm trying to say, please don't drown yourself in it, because it's not the end of the world, and none of this changes the fact that individual liberty is the only political ideology that makes rational or moral sense. We need you. Take some time off and recharge your batteries if you need to...everyone does, from time to time. Just don't give up.

[Revolution9]

You are being pretty ridiculous, you're as fucking paranoid as I was when I smoked three joints a day.

Just because people don't think exactly like you or do what you want them to do doesn't mean they work for the devil, something you and the list of people in your signature have a very hard time comprehending.

Yer talkin at me bozo. I don't like you nor your attitude nor scathing mouth so you get a dose of it right back and to boot you ain't even on the continent. Yer just another European with a bogus agenda. I can think circles around your kind of mindset. Yer still fucking paranoid..but of the wrong people..jerk.

Rev9

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I knew the Alex Jones bots would try to take over this movement. They are freaking crazy. If they run this thing we will be nothing more than Larouche types. Not all Alex Jones people are bad, but some have seriously clouded judgement. There are a few exceptions.

[John F Kennedy III]

You are being pretty ridiculous, you're as fucking paranoid as I was when I smoked three joints a day.

Just because people don't think exactly like you or do what you want them to do doesn't mean they work for the devil, something you and the list of people in your signature have a very hard time comprehending.

Lol you're a joke. A severely butthurt one at that. I recommend you do some research before making yourself look so laughably ridiculous.

Sincerely,

John F. Kennedy, III

[John F Kennedy III]

I knew the Alex Jones bots would try to take over this movement. They are freaking crazy. If they run this thing we will be nothing more than Larouche types.

You sound like some establishment worshipper when they talk about "Paulbots". Also you clearly don't know a damn thing about the history of this movement.

For the record I am still fully supporting Rand and am actually pretty pissed at Alex Jones right now about how he is going about this Rand thing.

[Mini-Me]

I knew the Alex Jones bots would try to take over this movement. They are freaking crazy. If they run this thing we will be nothing more than Larouche types. Not all Alex Jones people are bad, but some have seriously clouded judgement. There are a few exceptions.

Please don't, man. We're fighting with each other enough already.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

You sound like some establishment worshipper when they talk about "Paulbots". Also you clearly don't know a damn thing about the history of this movement.

For the record I am still fully supporting Rand and am actually pretty pissed at Alex Jones right now about how he is going about this Rand thing.

Well I edited my post because I remembered there are people like you that are able to think rationally.

However in general, while I find Alex Jones entertaining and I think he is a good person who makes a few good points, I do not think he is a rational thinker nor do I think he would take this movement in the right direction. And the fact is he attracts many crazy people, and the crazy people always reflect on the rest.

[John F Kennedy III]

Well I edited my post because I remembered there are people like you that are able to think rationally. However in general, while I find Alex Jones entertaining and I think he is a good person who makes a few good points, I do not think he is a rational thinker nor do I think he would take this movement in the right direction. And the fact is he attracts many crazy people, and the crazy people always reflect on the rest.

You should've known me 5 years ago, I'm MUCH better now :p

No movement will ever be without crazy people. We can't push people aside because they attract crazy people. This movement will be successful if we can get people from all sides to join together and fight our enemy. If we can't, it will fail. We are facing some hardcore scary crazy shit that is far more important than a politican making an endorsement. We need to dig down deep and fight with every ounce of strength we have.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

You should've known me 5 years ago, I'm MUCH better now :p

No movement will ever be without crazy people. We can't push people aside because they attract crazy people. This movement will be successful if we can get people from all sides to join together and fight our enemy. If we can't, it will fail. We are facing some hardcore scary crazy shit that is far more important than a politican making an endorsement. We need to dig down deep and fight with every ounce of strength we have.You're right.

[silverhandorder]

I agree with Rand. He is advancing principles by compromising politically. That is something good. All these people who are against it all I want to say is good riddance to you.

[Inkblots]

I fail to see how John Kerry attending a Bilderberg meeting would violate the Logan Act. Unless he was presenting himself as a representative of the US government - which I doubt he would do - and unless he engaged in negotiations with someone there who was a representative of a foreign government, there was no violation. Bilderberg has always been a meeting and discussion between politicians, business leaders, and various intellectuals as private individuals. It's not as if any official business is conducted there.

And from a political viewpoint, Rand made the right call in saying "no comment". Whether you think they're correct or not, most voters associate talking about the Bilderberg meeting with wearing tinfoil hats, so I would encourage Rand to run, not walk, away from such discussions.

[jmdrake]

I knew the Alex Jones bots would try to take over this movement. They are freaking crazy. If they run this thing we will be nothing more than Larouche types. Not all Alex Jones people are bad, but some have seriously clouded judgement. There are a few exceptions.

LOL. Rand Paul said on the above video that he learned about the Bilderberg group from Alex Jones. :p Anyhow, lots of people with no association with Alex Jones are not happy about the Romney endorsement. It does fly in the face of everything this movement has been about. Yeah I think it's a pragmatic move and may even be the best move. But that doesn't change the fact that it can't sit well with a movement that prided itself with having leaders that didn't compromise. I guess pride goes before a fall.

[silverhandorder]

LOL. Rand Paul said on the above video that he learned about the Bilderberg group from Alex Jones. :p Anyhow, lots of people with no association with Alex Jones are not happy about the Romney endorsement. It does fly in the face of everything this movement has been about. Yeah I think it's a pragmatic move and may even be the best move. But that doesn't change the fact that it can't sit well with a movement that prided itself with having leaders that didn't compromise. I guess pride goes before a fall.

There are different types of compromise. This is one is in our favor.

[Revolution9]

I knew the Alex Jones bots would try to take over this movement. They are freaking crazy. If they run this thing we will be nothing more than Larouche types. Not all Alex Jones people are bad, but some have seriously clouded judgement. There are a few exceptions.

I ain't an Alex Jones type. I come from a military family and have been places and seen shit first hand. That is why i hold the views I do. And scum like you tossing names at these good folk just gets my dander up.Iit ain't got nuthin' to do with Alex. Piss up a rope. Yer a fake.

Rev9

[Occam's Banana]

If a person's endorsement disappoints you so much [...]


I know that emotions are a part of being human. [...]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mini-Me again."

[PaulConventionWV]

I knew the Alex Jones bots would try to take over this movement. They are freaking crazy. If they run this thing we will be nothing more than Larouche types. Not all Alex Jones people are bad, but some have seriously clouded judgement. There are a few exceptions.

Fine, but this movement will never succeed unless people stop lying to themselves about the source of all the corruption. It exists, no doubt, but some people just can't seem to put two and two together. They think the corruption is some sort of accident meeting of bad decisions throughout history and the Rothschilds were not real people or something. A few years ago, people such as yourselves would have been saying the Bilderberg meetings were not real, and now what are you saying? That the world's most powerful elite like to meet once a year for tea? The meeting is a conspiracy in itself and it's now a well-established truths. How many more truths must we blind ourselves to before they become painfully obvious, like the Bilderberg meetings?

[PaulConventionWV]

I fail to see how John Kerry attending a Bilderberg meeting would violate the Logan Act. Unless he was presenting himself as a representative of the US government - which I doubt he would do - and unless he engaged in negotiations with someone there who was a representative of a foreign government, there was no violation. Bilderberg has always been a meeting and discussion between politicians, business leaders, and various intellectuals as private individuals. It's not as if any official business is conducted there.

And from a political viewpoint, Rand made the right call in saying "no comment". Whether you think they're correct or not, most voters associate talking about the Bilderberg meeting with wearing tinfoil hats, so I would encourage Rand to run, not walk, away from such discussions.

Oh, so they ARE just meeting for tea once a year in your opinion. Good to know.

Also, you might not approve of Rand's OTHER comment on Bilderberg.

[vita3]

Anybody read Sibel Edmonds new book? "Classified Women?"

http://www.amazon.com/Classified-Woman-The-Sibel-Edmonds-Story/dp/0615602223

[LibertyEagle]

Ted Cruz was endorsed by Dr. Paul. Yet, Ted Cruz refused to endorse Dr. Paul. Lot's of compromises have come out of the camp here of late. I am calling them as I see them...connecting the dots so to speak.

I understood it. I didn't like it, but I understood it. Dr. Paul is a polarizing politician, largely because people have the wrong idea about him and his message. Since by the time of this event it was pretty clear that Dr. Paul had no chance of getting the nomination, why would Cruz have endorsed him? Also, if you noticed, when Cruz has been promoting his endorsements, he has not listed Ron.

[LibertyEagle]

I fail to see how John Kerry attending a Bilderberg meeting would violate the Logan Act. Unless he was presenting himself as a representative of the US government - which I doubt he would do - and unless he engaged in negotiations with someone there who was a representative of a foreign government, there was no violation. Bilderberg has always been a meeting and discussion between politicians, business leaders, and various intellectuals as private individuals. It's not as if any official business is conducted there.
Yes, but government officials DO attend and THAT is against the Logan Act.


And from a political viewpoint, Rand made the right call in saying "no comment". Whether you think they're correct or not, most voters associate talking about the Bilderberg meeting with wearing tinfoil hats, so I would encourage Rand to run, not walk, away from such discussions.
Rand didn't say no comment. He pretty much laid it out in his interview with Luke. Did you listen to it? You should.

[donnay]

I understood it. I didn't like it, but I understood it. Dr. Paul is a polarizing politician, largely because people have the wrong idea about him and his message.

Yes the corporate controlled media did their damnedest to make sure his message was distorted, misconstrued and wacky sounding. Indeed.



Since by the time of this event it was pretty clear that Dr. Paul had no chance of getting the nomination, why would Cruz have endorsed him?

When Dr. Paul endorsed Ted Cruz he was still in the race. Much of the television ads I saw was that Sarah Palin (Hijacked Tea Party Darlin') was right behind Mr. Cruz.



Also, if you noticed, when Cruz has been promoting his endorsements, he has not listed Ron.

Oh absolutely that was a given. That is how I can discern who are the corrupt politicians and who aren't. Continue the black out so the people never hear the message.

The sad shame of it all, a good majority of Texans don't even know who Dr. Ron Paul is. I saw that while I was down visiting for a month. I did more to wake people up in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex then any of these so-called politicians did that Dr. Paul endorsed.

In 2008 Dr. Paul did not compromise in this way. He stood steadfast to his core beliefs and principles and would not endorse any of the establishment. His popularity grew by leaps and bounds for it. Because that is what the citizens want, they hunger for a real person of principle to stand up to the corrupt establishment.

Sadly it is not the way it is this time.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes the corporate controlled media did their damnedest to make sure his message was distorted, misconstrued and wacky sounding. Indeed.
Yes they sure did. But, Dr. Paul didn't help much either.


When Dr. Paul endorsed Ted Cruz he was still in the race. Much of the television ads I saw was that Sarah Palin (Hijacked Tea Party Darlin') was right behind Mr. Cruz.
Sure he was in the race. But he had very little chance of winning.


Oh absolutely that was a given. That is how I can discern who are the corrupt politicians and who aren't. Continue the black out so the people never hear the message.
Uh, Cruz is trying to win his own election. By the way, there are a whole lot of people that endorsed Dr. Paul too, that weren't shouted from the rooftops, because it would not have helped Dr. Paul.


The sad shame of it all, a good majority of Texans don't even know who Dr. Ron Paul is. I saw that while I was down visiting for a month. I did more to wake people up in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex then any of these so-called politicians did that Dr. Paul endorsed.
I would hope so. You are a supporter. Dr. Paul does not gauge endorsements by who will turn around and promote him. And if he did, wouldn't that be one of those backroom deals that we don't like?


In 2008 Dr. Paul did not compromise in this way. He stood steadfast to his core beliefs and principles and would not endorse any of the establishment. His popularity grew by leaps and bounds for it. Because that is what the citizens want, they hunger for a real person of principle to stand up to the corrupt establishment.
What are you talking about? Dr. Paul hasn't compromised his principles.


Sadly it is not the way it is this time.
You're wrong, you know. Ron Paul has been endorsing people all along, some which weren't what you would call pure. He also hasn't endorsed some of our people like Sheriff Mack, Debra Medina and on and on. The latter I suppose because of his rule of not endorsing against an incumbent Republican...

I

[donnay]

What are you talking about? Dr. Paul hasn't compromised his principles.I

He refused to endorse John McCain last go around. I applauded him for standing firm on his core principles. He would not acquiesce to the GOP. He did endorse Constitutional Candidate Chuck Baldwin instead and a host of other third party candidates.

Two-party 'charade' must end, Ron Paul says

September 10, 2008

Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas called on voters to back a third-party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his party's nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.

Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination this year, told supporters at the National Press Club in Washington that he is not endorsing GOP nominee Sen. John McCain or Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama.

Instead, Paul will give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-10/politics/paul.endorsement_1_paul-supporters-third-party-candidates-ron-paul-revolution?_s=PM:POLITICS



You're wrong, you know. Ron Paul has been endorsing people all along, some which weren't what you would call pure. He also hasn't endorsed some of our people like Sheriff Mack, Debra Medina and on and on. The latter I suppose because of his rule of not endorsing against an incumbent Republican...

It is interesting to note he didn't endorse Sheriff Mack. Of course that may be due to his advisers in the Campaign steering him in other directions, as I have suspected all along.

[Perry]

I can't wait to see the logical loops people run around in their minds after Ron endorses Romney at the convention.

All this time and you still don't know Ron Paul very well. If Ron endorsed Romney that would be a victory for us because it means Romney had been convicted by our words and become the liberty candidate. Aside from this Ron Paul would never, ever, endorse Romney.

[LibertyEagle]

He refused to endorse John McCain last go around. I applauded him for standing firm on his core principles. He would not acquiesce to the GOP. He did endorse Constitutional Candidate Chuck Baldwin instead and a host of other third party candidates.

Two-party 'charade' must end, Ron Paul says

September 10, 2008

Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas called on voters to back a third-party candidate for president Wednesday, rejecting his party's nominee and offering equally harsh words for the Democratic candidate.

Paul, who unsuccessfully sought the Republican presidential nomination this year, told supporters at the National Press Club in Washington that he is not endorsing GOP nominee Sen. John McCain or Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama.

Instead, Paul will give his seal of approval to four candidates: Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, independent candidate Ralph Nader and Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin.
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-09-10/politics/paul.endorsement_1_paul-supporters-third-party-candidates-ron-paul-revolution?_s=PM:POLITICS
Oh yeah, that's something to applaud. :rolleyes: I wouldn't go around too much telling people that "Paul gave his seal of approval" to the likes of Commie McKinney.

He actually endorsed POS like Lamar Smith.


It is interesting to note he didn't endorse Sheriff Mack. Of course that may be due to his advisers in the Campaign steering him in other directions, as I have suspected all along.
Yeah, if all else fails, blame the campaign. :rolleyes:

At least you are consistent. lol

[donnay]

Oh yeah, that's something to applaud. :rolleyes: I wouldn't go around too much telling people that "Paul gave his seal of approval" to the likes of Commie McKinney.

A commie like McKinney--Oh that's right, she had the courage to stand up and ask questions about the inconsistencies and irregularities that were told to the American people about 9/11, that commie? *smacks hand to forehead*



He actually endorsed POS like Lamar Smith.

That was this go-around not his last run. Again, being consistent as I am, I pointed that out above.


The 2012 campaign is stacked with neocons that is the glaring truth of the matter, unfortunately.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Oh yeah, that's something to applaud. :rolleyes: I wouldn't go around too much telling people that "Paul gave his seal of approval" to the likes of Commie McKinney.

She agreed to balance the budget, eliminate the FED, eliminate the drug war, and eliminate the empire, among other things. Look up The Principles.