Rand Paul Confronted on Mitt Romney Endorsement by wearechange

[wongster41]

Rand Paul Confronted on Mitt Romney Endorsement


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtO5INu-VY4&feature=g-all-u

[TruthisTreason]

Wearedipsticks.org

[Cody1]

I'm all for the vetting process but this was pretty stupid.

Just listen to the way they are all giddy afterwards lol.

[wongster41]

Wearedipsticks.org

say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc. It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.

[Bruehound]

Dopes.

[Cody1]

say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc. It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.

This was three people with an agenda. "TALK TO US ABOUT THE BILDURRBERRGGSSS RAND, PROVE THAT YOU'RE STILL ONE OF USSSS". Sound about right?

[Endthefednow]

Well, I will never support Rand Paul he is done in my book. Sell OUT!!

We The People are the Ron Paul R3volution!!

[Matthanuf06]

say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc. It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.

It's not painful. It's smart. He's trying to broaden support, not harden the hardliners. Of course you can disagree or dislike his strategy but it's clear as day what he's trying to do. I happen to agree with Rand.

Frankly it's not enough to be registered as a member of the GOP. We need to be infiltrate the mainstream. A "R" doesn't make us any less fringe in the eyes of the public. Bridging that gap should be a top goal

[asurfaholic]

Well, I will never support Rand Paul he is done in my book. Sell OUT!!

We The People are the Ron Paul R3volution!!

Im not ron paul revolution, I am for revolution. I trust what is going on, and frankly the only way to really get change in the system is to infilterate it in the way rand is doing. There is no element of sell out.

He is doing what is necessary to bring credibility to the liberty movement. Its a step in the right direction. Total change wont ever happen overnight, to think otherwise is delusional.

[wongster41]

It's not painful. It's smart. He's trying to broaden support, not harden the hardliners. Of course you can disagree or dislike his strategy but it's clear as day what he's trying to do. I happen to agree with Rand.

Frankly it's not enough to be registered as a member of the GOP. We need to be infiltrate the mainstream. A "R" doesn't make us any less fringe in the eyes of the public. Bridging that gap should be a top goal

He might be trying to broaden his support but at the same time he lost A LOT of support from his core supporters that got him to where he is today, at facevalue, he sold out. If he was to run for president in 2016, where is he going to get the support? The liberty movement?

[TruthisTreason]

say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc. It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.

Real journalism? LOL! How about Bilderberg Journalism? Rand's endorsement is the best thing for this movement, why? Because there are some of us, like Rand, who heard Ron's call to work and influence the Republican party, then there is the rest of us.

[specsaregood]

He might be trying to broaden his support but at the same time he lost A LOT of support from his core supporters that got him to where he is today, at facevalue, he sold out. If he was to run for president in 2016, where is he going to get the support? The liberty movement?

If 4years from now he doesn't change his positions and votes on the bills I'll sure support him. And so will all of you. you all talk a lot of smack; but he has 4 years to woo all of you to his side.

[Adrock]

These "reporters" look like a bunch of tools.

[cassielund99@gmail.com]

Im not ron paul revolution, I am for revolution. I trust what is going on, and frankly the only way to really get change in the system is to infilterate it in the way rand is doing. There is no element of sell out.

He is doing what is necessary to bring credibility to the liberty movement. Its a step in the right direction. Total change wont ever happen overnight, to think otherwise is delusional.

I agree with you 100% on this issue. The problem is some people like chaos. Like occupy wall street. They think what there doing is helping there cause. What there doing is stupid. They have had zero organization and no true belief. I am for protesting, but with a message. The more chaotic it becomes the more they follow. Like the Ron Paul revolution the last few months. Now that the truth is that Ron Paul most likely won't win and Rand Paul endorsing Romney. This caused more chaos. They love it so much they jumped on the never vote for Rand Paul and he is a sell out train. People like Adam Kokesh and Alex Jones hurt are movement more than anything else. That's because they like chaos. Its in there nature.

[chudrockz]

If 4years from now he doesn't change his positions and votes on the bills I'll sure support him. And so will all of you. you all talk a lot of smack; but he has 4 years to woo all of you to his side.

Let him woo away. He lost me. Permanently.

[wongster41]

Real journalism? LOL! How about Bilderberg Journalism? Rand's endorsement is the best thing for this movement, why? Because there are some of us, like Rand, who heard Ron's call to work and influence the Republican party, then there is the rest of us.

Are you suggesting Bilderberg is not real or not worth talking about? Yes Ron wanted to influence the party, but he would never endorse a guy who went against everything he stood for.

[angelatc]

He might be trying to broaden his support but at the same time he lost A LOT of support from his core supporters that got him to where he is today, at facevalue, he sold out. If he was to run for president in 2016, where is he going to get the support? The liberty movement?

Duh. The GOP. As unfair as it is, there's a lot more of them than there are of us. He may have sold us out (or not) but if he did, it was a calculated move.

[wongster41]

These "politicians" look like a bunch of tools.

fixed it for you.

[schiffheadbaby]

Did you all see Rand on Glenn Beck show?

What a prick

[TomtheTinker]

He might be trying to broaden his support but at the same time he lost A LOT of support from his core supporters that got him to where he is today, at facevalue, he sold out. If he was to run for president in 2016, where is he going to get the support? The liberty movement?


Rand will likely keep 50%+ of his fathers activist and almost all his voters. He will also likely gain support from many of his ex-supporters with strong stances for freedom on his senate floor. Not to mentionhe has support from many tea party type voters.

While you and I may be upset..make no mistake when the days come for Rand to announce his bid for president..many of us will still be there.

Hopefully Rand will stay true where it matters.

[LibertyEagle]

say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc. It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.

1. Rand had already answered the questions about Bilderberger in a previous interview with Luke.

2. Rand and his aide told Luke that he had just gotten out of a meeting and that she was briefing him before his next thing and asked him to make an appointment.

3. But, noooooooooooooo Luke had to be an asshole and keep on.

Rand didn't dodge shit. Luke is an embarrassment.

[schiffheadbaby]

Rand will likely keep 50%+ of his fathers activist and almost all his voters. He will also likely gain support from many of his ex-supporters with strong stances for freedom on his senate floor. Not to mentionhe has support from many tea party type voters.

While you and I may be upset..make no mistake when the days come for Rand to announce his bid for president..many of us will still be there.

Hopefully Rand will stay true where it matters.

Oh yea like presenting halfass 500 billion dollar budget cuts?

Rand has no charisma or real desire for change. He enjoys his time in DC, and yet everyone supports him because of his name (not a free-market solution)

[Adrock]

fixed it for you.

My original statement was fine. This ambush type of "reporting" is ridiculous when liberals and conservatives do it. It looks really gawd awful when libertarians try it, fail, and afterwards act like giddy school children.

[LibertyEagle]

Are you suggesting Bilderberg is not real or not worth talking about?

Have you not seen the other video from Luke where Rand said exactly what he thought the Bilderberg group was?


Yes Ron wanted to influence the party, but he would never endorse a guy who went against everything he stood for.
You are mischaracterizing him.

[samsung1]

Rom should disown Rand and adopt Gary Johnson as his new son.

[Adrock]

Are you suggesting Bilderberg is not real or not worth talking about? Yes Ron wanted to influence the party, but he would never endorse a guy who went against everything he stood for.

Like when he supported Gingrich for speaker?

[LibertyEagle]

Rom should disown Rand and adopt Gary Johnson as his new son.

What in hell are you talking about?

[angelatc]

Have you not seen the other video from Luke where Rand said exactly what he thought the Bilderberg group was?


You are mischaracterizing him.

YOu're trying to talk sense to the people that insist that the Illuminati already have our futures so deeply under control that resistance is futile.

[green73]

Did you all see Rand on Glenn Beck show?

What a prick

Link?

[LibertyEagle]

Sometimes, I really hate this movement and now is one of those times.

[wongster41]

1. Rand had already answered the questions about Bilderberger in a previous interview with Luke.

2. Rand and his aide told Luke that he had just gotten out of a meeting and that she was briefing him before his next thing and asked him to make an appointment.

3. But, noooooooooooooo Luke had to be an asshole and keep on.

Rand didn't dodge shit. Luke is an embarrassment.

That interview took place two years ago, he also discredited Mitt around the same time and well, we all know what happened last week. People just have questions right now and it's only fair to ask them.

[nobody's_hero]

This movement may be the only movement that seeks to hold its own accountable. Granted, it makes our job much more difficult, but is it necessary? (I'll let everyone answer that one themselves)

[specsaregood]

Rom should disown Rand and adopt Gary Johnson as his new son.
The same gary johnson that had a great shot at a senate seat where he could compete with Rand on who can cause the most heartburn in the Senate; but instead chose to do a destined to be forgotten LP run for president?

[schiffheadbaby]

Link?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWOkGBFYyw

Please watch and share.

Around 330-5 in.

Very condescending

[angelatc]

Sometimes, I really hate this movement and now if one of those times.

It's not the movement - it's these boards. The people in the movement who don't hang out on the internet all day long are much more encouraging.

[CJPrinter]

say what you want but this is real journalism, you won't see this on fox, cnn, msnbc, abc. It's really painful to watch Rand dodge this interview.


It's not painful. It's smart. He's trying to broaden support, not harden the hardliners. Of course you can disagree or dislike his strategy but it's clear as day what he's trying to do. I happen to agree with Rand.

Frankly it's not enough to be registered as a member of the GOP. We need to be infiltrate the mainstream. A "R" doesn't make us any less fringe in the eyes of the public. Bridging that gap should be a top goal


He might be trying to broaden his support but at the same time he lost A LOT of support from his core supporters that got him to where he is today, at facevalue, he sold out. If he was to run for president in 2016, where is he going to get the support? The liberty movement?

wongster41 to put it as blunt as possible, yes.

The liberty movement is MUCH more than just Ron Paul supporters and the radical fringe. To become president a candidate MUST appeal to as many people as possible. Rand DID NOT "sell out," he simply understands what it takes to win the game! If you are so stubborn you won't accept this, he's telling you he doesn't need you, because for every one of you he looses he gains several more in exchange. He's holding firm to his liberty convictions, just because you don't agree with his methods doesn't make him wrong. The liberty movement will grow, with or without you and we will support him for a presidential bid...

[CJPrinter]

My original statement was fine. This ambush type of "reporting" is ridiculous when liberals and conservatives do it. It looks really gawd awful when libertarians try it, fail, and afterwards act like giddy school children.

^^^THIS!^^^

[CJPrinter]

It's not the movement - it's these boards. The people in the movement who don't hang out on the internet all day long are much more encouraging.

^^^EXACTLY!^^^

[Adrock]

Sometimes, I really hate this movement and now is one of those times.

I feel it represents a lack of maturity as a movement.

[schiffheadbaby]

The Rand apologists are out in full force.

Watch him with Glenn Beck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWOkGBFYyw

[IndianaPolitico]

It's not the movement - it's these boards. The people in the movement who don't hang out on the internet all day long are much more encouraging.
I have to say, I have to agree. Even though we didn't win at the Indiana convention, I saw excitement, and passion to continue. Come back here, and you would think the sky just fell.

[wongster41]

wongster41 to put it as blunt as possible, yes.

The liberty movement is MUCH more than just Ron Paul supporters and the radical fringe. To become president a candidate MUST appeal to as many people as possible. Rand DID NOT "sell out," he simply understands what it takes to win the game! If you are so stubborn you won't accept this, he's telling you he doesn't need you, because for every one of you he looses he gains several more in exchange. He's holding firm to his liberty convictions, just because you don't agree with his methods doesn't make him wrong. The liberty movement will grow, with or without you and we will support him for a presidential bid...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, if you really think the GOP establishment won't try to fraud elections in 2016 and marginalize Rand like they did with his father, than you are sadly mistaken. Republicans and Democrats will always prop up a candidate who is for wars.

[Adrock]

The Rand apologists are out in full force.

Watch him with Glenn Beck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWOkGBFYyw

I see no one apologizing. Everyone is calling out the foolish method used.

[green73]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWOkGBFYyw

Please watch and share.

Around 330-5 in.

Very condescending

Wow. He just used the "extremist" word.

[schiffheadbaby]

Wow. He just used the "extremist" word.

Yes, Rand has thrown RP supporters under the bus of course in favor of Beck/Hannity and Romney.

This video needs to be seen by all, create a thread for it if you'd like because I haven't seen one

[JohnGalt23g]

Oh yea like presenting halfass 500 billion dollar budget cuts?

Rand has no charisma or real desire for change. He enjoys his time in DC, and yet everyone supports him because of his name (not a free-market solution)

Grow up.

[CJPrinter]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, if you really think the GOP establishment won't try to fraud elections in 2016 and marginalize Rand like they did with his father, than you are sadly mistaken. Republicans and Democrats will always prop up a candidate who is for wars.

Fair enough. Time will tell...

[schiffheadbaby]

Grow up.

So you are fine with Rand wanting continuation of Social Security, Medicare, supports Drone use in America etc.

It's more like you are a brainless follower of Ron Paul and following Rand simply because of family ties, betraying your "galt" nametag

[AuH20]

We are Change trying to play gotcha with Rand Paul?? Did Alex send them?

[LibertyEagle]

//

[LibertyEagle]

Wow. He just used the "extremist" word.

Damn straight and they ARE. He was talking about the few who were "preaching violence to me and my family."

What would you call them? Besides assholes, that is.

[TomtheTinker]

Oh yea like presenting halfass 500 billion dollar budget cuts?

Rand has no charisma or real desire for change. He enjoys his time in DC, and yet everyone supports him because of his name (not a free-market solution)

No like fillabustering the patriot act and sopa...like be 1 of a 100 senators to hold up the synthetics drug ban.

The 500 billion in budget cuts may not be a 100% what needs to be done..I dare you to find a senator in the last 50 years that presented a budget cut that size.

[AuH20]

This movement may be the only movement that seeks to hold its own accountable. Granted, it makes our job much more difficult, but is it necessary? (I'll let everyone answer that one themselves)

Accountable?? More like tar and feather without evidence.

[JohnGalt23g]

That interview took place two years ago, he also discredited Mitt around the same time and well, we all know what happened last week. People just have questions right now and it's only fair to ask them.

If he wanted answers to questions, then Sen Paul made him the offer to schedule time with his office. That is how adults in a civilized society conduct press interviews with officeholders.

[LibertyEagle]

Yes, Rand has thrown RP supporters under the bus of course in favor of Beck/Hannity and Romney.

This video needs to be seen by all, create a thread for it if you'd like because I haven't seen one

Oh, bullshit. There is absolutely no proof of that. Not yet, anyway.

[schiffheadbaby]

No like fillabustering the patriot act and sopa...like be 1 of a 100 senators to hold up the synthetics drug ban.

The 500 billion in budget cuts may not be a 100% what needs to be done..I dare you to find a senator in the last 50 years that presented a budget cut that size.

Tom, in the past we didn't have so much to cut so it would be impossible to find someone in 1970 who proposed a 500 billion dollar cut.

Rand is wishy washy, do you support his drone stance? He is in between Dick Cheney and Ron Paul

[schiffheadbaby]

Oh, bullshit. There is absolutely no proof of that. Not yet, anyway.

Did you watch GBTV?

He uses strawman of "all rp supporters are extremists"

he does this to ingratiate himself with big government glenn beck

[LibertyEagle]

Did you watch GBTV?

He uses strawman of "all rp supporters are extremists"

he does this to ingratiate himself with big government glenn beck

Yes, I watched it and what's more, I AGREE WITH HIM. He was talking about those select few who were threatening violence against he and his family and even Ron!! Or, do you applaud those assholes?

Rand was making the point that these extremist ASSHOLES were not the majority of the liberty movement. Don't you get it? When people go around cursing everyone out and making threats, they smear our entire movement and scare the shit out of mainstream Americans. That means that it smears all the rest of us and hurts our progress.

[Fredom101]

This was pretty cool, but disappointing at the same time. Cool because these two didn't back down and asked Rand some real questions. Disappointing that he refused to answer them. He could have spent 5 minutes with these guys and made himself look a lot less guilty.

[Adrock]

Did you watch GBTV?

He uses strawman of "all rp supporters are extremists"

he does this to ingratiate himself with big government glenn beck

Are you talking about the video you posted? He actually goes out of his way to segregate the knuckleheads from the majority of the movement.

[schiffheadbaby]

Yes, I watched it and what's more, I AGREE WITH HIM. He was talking about those select few who were threatening violence against he and his family and even Ron!! Or, do you applaud those assholes?

No M'am. He implied there was more violence than there was and tried to group us as "crazy" to ingratiate himself with Mr. Beck to be "one of the boys."

That was a strawman argument if I've ever seen one from Randy Paul

[JohnGalt23g]

So you are fine with Rand wanting continuation of Social Security, Medicare, supports Drone use in America etc.

It's more like you are a brainless follower of Ron Paul and following Rand simply because of family ties, betraying your "galt" nametag

I'm fine with Rand engaging in politics. That sort of what you do when you enter politics... you engage in politics. Like when Ron Paul voted for Newt Gingrich for SOTH, or when he endorsed Ted Cruz, who stands for Iranian sanctions.

And son, when you've helped elect half as many GOPers to office as I have, come and talk to me about being a brainless follower. I know what tools are at our disposal, and what/who stands in our way. And right now, what/who is the biggest obstacle in our way, is YOU. YOU and the shitheads out there who think they know better than the people who have actually moved the ball down the field. I'll work in the GOP with Rand Paul to move the ball down the field. If it's with fellow libertarians, then great. If not... hey, I'll work with the Tea Partiers, and accept half a loaf of Liberty for now. And I'll laugh at the purist urchins looking desperately in the windows at the grown ups eating at the political table, downtrodden because the maitre d' won't let them in without a coat and tie.

Suck it up, cupcake! Put on the coat and tie, sit down at the table, and act like a grown up. Or, get used to playing the role of the urchin in the cold.

[AuH20]

No M'am. He implied there was more violence than there was and tried to group us as "crazy" to ingratiate himself with Mr. Beck to be "one of the boys."

That was a strawman argument if I've ever seen one from Randy Paul
Read the facebook comments on the Rand Paul page. Paul was being kind with the "extremist" tag on some of those individuals.

[schiffheadbaby]

I'm fine with Rand engaging in politics. That sort of what you do when you enter politics... you engage in politics. Like when Ron Paul voted for Newt Gingrich for SOTH, or when he endorsed Ted Cruz, who stands for Iranian sanctions.

And son, when you've helped elect half as many GOPers to office as I have, come and talk to me about being a brainless follower. I know what tools are at our disposal, and what/who stands in our way. And right now, what/who is the biggest obstacle in our way, is YOU. YOU and the shitheads out there who think they know better than the people who have actually moved the ball down the field. I'll work in the GOP with Rand Paul to move the ball down the field. If it's with fellow libertarians, then great. If not... hey, I'll work with the Tea Partiers, and accept half a loaf of Liberty for now. And I'll laugh at the purist urchins looking desperately in the windows at the grown ups eating at the political table, downtrodden because the maitre d' won't let them in without a coat and tie.

Suck it up, cupcake! Put on the coat and tie, sit down at the table, and act like a grown up. Or, get used to playing the role of the urchin in the cold.

You haven't moved the ball down the field mr wannabe bigwig.

Tell me how the people you have helped elected have changed the monetary policy or shrunk government? Sure that will be crickets.

[Elwar]

What is "e-change" and how do I wear it?

[LibertyEagle]

This was pretty cool, but disappointing at the same time. Cool because these two didn't back down and asked Rand some real questions. Disappointing that he refused to answer them. He could have spent 5 minutes with these guys and made himself look a lot less guilty.

1. He had already spoken with Luke about the Bilderberg group. I saw the video somewhere on here yesterday.

2. Rand was busy. He was getting briefed before another meeting. He asked them to make an appointment and they would talk.

3. Luke refused. Luke was a jerk.

/end of story

[green73]

Damn straight and they ARE. He was talking about the few who were "preaching violence to me and my family."

What would you call them? Besides assholes, that is.

It sounded like he was dismissing all those that are unhappy with him as a tiny minority of dumbasses calling for violence (which I'm sure is a minuscule percentage of people, along with some shills).

[LibertyEagle]

No M'am. He implied there was more violence than there was and tried to group us as "crazy" to ingratiate himself with Mr. Beck to be "one of the boys."

That was a strawman argument if I've ever seen one from Randy Paul

Sorry. You are wrong. I saw the comments. He was being nice about it.

Again, Rand was saying that those people who did that only represented a very small percentage of the movement. What would you have had him say?

[schiffheadbaby]

It sounded like he was dismissing all those that are unhappy with him as a tiny minority of dumbasses calling for violence (which I'm sure is a minuscule percentage of people, along with some shills).

Exactly. He dismisses genuine, and substantiated, criticism and blows off everyone as disgruntled "crazy extremists." Very poor rhetorical technique

[Adrock]

Damn straight and they ARE. He was talking about the few who were "preaching violence to me and my family."

What would you call them? Besides assholes, that is.

They definitely can't be called libertarians.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm fine with Rand engaging in politics. That sort of what you do when you enter politics... you engage in politics. Like when Ron Paul voted for Newt Gingrich for SOTH, or when he endorsed Ted Cruz, who stands for Iranian sanctions.

And son, when you've helped elect half as many GOPers to office as I have, come and talk to me about being a brainless follower. I know what tools are at our disposal, and what/who stands in our way. And right now, what/who is the biggest obstacle in our way, is YOU. YOU and the shitheads out there who think they know better than the people who have actually moved the ball down the field. I'll work in the GOP with Rand Paul to move the ball down the field. If it's with fellow libertarians, then great. If not... hey, I'll work with the Tea Partiers, and accept half a loaf of Liberty for now. And I'll laugh at the purist urchins looking desperately in the windows at the grown ups eating at the political table, downtrodden because the maitre d' won't let them in without a coat and tie.

Suck it up, cupcake! Put on the coat and tie, sit down at the table, and act like a grown up. Or, get used to playing the role of the urchin in the cold.

Agree^^^

I've said before that these people throwing bombs have probably never even volunteered on a campaign or even been to any kind of organizational meeting in their life. It's so easy to never get involved and just sit on the internet and bit h and moan. What a waste of time...

[wongster41]

1. He had already spoken with Luke about the Bilderberg group. I saw the video somewhere on here yesterday.

2. Rand was busy. He was getting briefed before another meeting. He asked them to make an appointment and they would talk.

3. Luke refused. Luke was a jerk.

/end of story

You are speaking of an interview that was held TWO YEARS ago.

"This is a never before seen interview of Rand Paul in 2010 on the campaign trail right before becoming U.S Senator. It's pretty amazing seeing Rand Paul make such statements against the Bilderberg Group and Goldman Sachs but yet still endorse a Goldman Sachs flip flopping Bilderberg puppet. "

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9sctUOlOw8&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL9BA1C21C27C36DCC

[LibertyEagle]

It sounded like he was dismissing all those that are unhappy with him as a tiny minority of dumbasses calling for violence (which I'm sure is a minuscule percentage of people, along with some shills).

There is a huge difference between people who disagreed with him endorsing Romney and those who were calling he and Ron all kinds of names, including some threatening violence against them.

[schiffheadbaby]

Agree^^^

I've said before that these people throwing bombs have probably never even volunteered on a campaign or even been to any kind of organizational meeting in their life. It's so easy to never get involved and just sit on the internet and bit h and moan. What a waste of time...

I have done a lot of work on the ground, another chance for you all to dismiss critics as noobs instead of the merits of the criticisms.

[JohnGalt23g]

You haven't moved the ball down the field mr wannabe bigwig.

Tell me how the people you have helped elected have changed the monetary policy or shrunk government? Sure that will be crickets.

People I've helped elect have voted to repeal tax increases, to cap property taxes, to legalize medicinal cannabis, to support prison reform. Real-world, on the ground steps towards Liberty and smaller government.

As opposed to whining about Bilderbergers and vote fraud on the intertubez.

[schiffheadbaby]

There is a huge difference between people who disagreed with him endorsing Romney and those who were calling he and Ron all kinds of names, including some threatening violence against them.

Notice how Randy never addresses the roots of the criticism, but spends his time ridiculing the "extremists".

[Adrock]

Exactly. He dismisses genuine, and substantiated, criticism and blows off everyone as disgruntled "crazy extremists." Very poor rhetorical technique

They were talking about those who were acting a fool specifically. You know that already though. You posted the video.

[Fredom101]

1. He had already spoken with Luke about the Bilderberg group. I saw the video somewhere on here yesterday.

2. Rand was busy. He was getting briefed before another meeting. He asked them to make an appointment and they would talk.

3. Luke refused. Luke was a jerk.

/end of story

Who's paying Rand's salary?
It's not like any other job man. These government employees, no matter what their last name, have to expect this kind of questioning because of the job they are in. After all, they are the ones "in power"- over you and me. I'm not sympathetic one bit here to Rand's schedule. He could have simply responded as he was walking. If he has a reasonable explanation for supporting the Builderberger Romney, why not make a quick statement and be done with it?

[LibertyEagle]

You are speaking of an interview that was held TWO YEARS ago.

Thanks for finding that and posting it. Ok, so what if it was 2 years ago? He answered the questions then. Why would Luke have ants in his pants about wanting him to tell him again? What's more, it sounded like Paul was quite willing to do so, but WAS BUSY RIGHT THEN and asked them to make an appointment. What the hell is wrong with that? Now, if Rand refused to meet with him or to reiterate what he said 2 years ago when they did meet, that would be another thing. But, that is not what happened. At least, not yet.

[schiffheadbaby]

They were talking about those who were acting a fool specifically. You know that already though. You posted the video.

Yes they were, but you give him a pass for being duplicitous about Willard supporting Audit the Fed

[LibertyEagle]

Who's paying Rand's salary?
It's not like any other job man. These government employees, no matter what their last name, have to expect this kind of questioning because of the job they are in. After all, they are the ones "in power"- over you and me. I'm not sympathetic one bit here to Rand's schedule. He could have simply responded as he was walking. If he has a reasonable explanation for supporting the Builderberger Romney, why not make a quick statement and be done with it?

One more time. The aide said he had just gotten out of a meeting and she was briefing him on some things. I would assume before his next meeting.

Have you never had a high-pressure job? I have. Rand was nicer than I would have been. :p

[LibertyEagle]

Notice how Randy never addresses the roots of the criticism, but spends his time ridiculing the "extremists".

He has been on 3 interviews that I know of in the last few days, "addressing the roots of the criticism".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOV1yquNIec&

[wongster41]

Thanks for finding that and posting it. Ok, so what if it was 2 years ago? He answered the questions then. Why would Luke have ants in his pants about wanting him to tell him again? What's more, it sounded like Paul was quite willing to do so, but WAS BUSY RIGHT THEN and asked them to make an appointment. What the hell is wrong with that? Now, if Rand refused to meet with him or to reiterate what he said 2 years ago when they did meet, that would be another thing. But, that is not what happened. At least, not yet.

Well, you were making a point that he already answered lukes bilderberg question like he did it last week or something, but the interview took place 2 years ago and obviously we were taken back from the endorsement and now people have questions.

[Adrock]

Yes they were, but you give him a pass for being duplicitous about Willard supporting Audit the Fed

Glad you conceded the point.

[green73]

There is a huge difference between people who disagreed with him endorsing Romney and those who were calling he and Ron all kinds of names, including some threatening violence against them.

I agree, and it sounded like he obfuscated reality in that interview.

[specsaregood]

Who's paying Rand's salary?
It's not like any other job man. These government employees, no matter what their last name, have to expect this kind of questioning because of the job they are in. After all, they are the ones "in power"- over you and me. I'm not sympathetic one bit here to Rand's schedule. He could have simply responded as he was walking. If he has a reasonable explanation for supporting the Builderberger Romney, why not make a quick statement and be done with it?

RPF's never ceases making me guffaw.

[schiffheadbaby]

The Rand apologists here are ridiculous.

You complain about mindless D's/R's and mindlessly follow Randy even as he supports use of Drones, sanctions, poor budgets and happily supports Willard Romney.

[Adrock]

Yes they were, but you give him a pass for being duplicitous about Willard supporting Audit the Fed

I am not giving passes on anything. My beef is with the tactics being used. I am in a wait and see mode with Rand right now. In the mean time I am going to focus on advancing liberty at any level.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, you were making a point that he already answered lukes bilderberg question like he did it last week or something, but the interview took place 2 years ago and obviously we were taken back from the endorsement and now people have questions.

That's cool. Rand asked him to make an appointment for them to talk, but that right that minute he was busy.

[AuH20]

The Rand apologists here are ridiculous.

You complain about mindless D's/R's and mindlessly follow Randy even as he supports use of Drones, sanctions, poor budgets and happily supports Willard Romney.

You're right. He should just resign and let you run for his displaced office. What primary are you running in? Do you think you have a shot?

[green73]

That's cool. Rand asked him to make an appointment for them to talk, but that right that minute he was busy.

Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?

[Sola_Fide]

Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?

He has.

[jmdrake]

Rom should disown Rand and adopt Gary Johnson as his new son.

"Rom" has no son.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/12/Rom-1.jpg/250px-Rom-1.jpg

[LibertyEagle]

Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?

Actually, yes. In a different way, of course. But, yes, I could imagine him asking them to make an appointment, because he was tied up at the moment.

[JohnGalt23g]

The Rand apologists here are ridiculous.

You complain about mindless D's/R's and mindlessly follow Randy even as he supports use of Drones, sanctions, poor budgets and happily supports Willard Romney.

I don't complain about mindless D's and R's. I recognize that Rand Paul, and every single person who has ever gotten to the level of power and influence that he has, engages in politics. I also recognize that those who decry the use of politics to attain political ends are always... ALWAYS in the cheap seats.

[green73]

Actually, yes. In a different way, of course. But, yes, I could imagine him asking them to make an appointment, because he was tied up at the moment.

He would at least talk as he walked. He wouldn't just ignore somebody like that.

[LibertyEagle]

Look guys, I know that a bunch of us are unnerved about Rand's endorsement of Romney, but to attack him for dumb shit like this is ridiculous. Come on, now.

[jmdrake]

Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zp6A-l-TwE&feature=related

[Adrock]

Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?

The Bruno interview comes to mind. :p

[PatriotOne]

**Patiently waiting for others, like me, to come to the realization that Alex Jones and Co. have been controlled opposition all along.**

Been about 2 years since I became suspicious and apprx. a year since I have known it. It's hard to admit I could have been so wrong, but here it is folks.

[LibertyEagle]

He would at least talk as he walked. He wouldn't just ignore somebody like that.

I don't know that. If Ron had told you that he was busy being briefed before the next meeting he was going to and asked you to make an appointment, and you persisted, do you think he would just buckle and give in to you? I don't. ;)

[green73]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zp6A-l-TwE&feature=related

Not the same at all.

[green73]

The Bruno interview comes to mind. :p

Not the same at all.

[jmdrake]

Can you imagine Ron blowing somebody off like that?


The Bruno interview comes to mind. :p

Ummmm....I think the Bruno character was hoping that would happen. (pun intended)

[Adrock]

Do we now have our own media wing that sensationalizes in order to get views, clicks, and money?

[wongster41]

That's cool. Rand asked him to make an appointment for them to talk, but that right that minute he was busy.

right... he looked so busy at 4:44. More like he was dodging some tough questions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtO5INu-VY4&feature=plcp

[green73]

I don't know that. If Ron had told you that he was busy being briefed before the next meeting he was going to and asked you to make an appointment, and you persisted, do you think he would just buckle and give in to you? I don't. ;)

He wouldn't. He loves talking to people. It's not in his nature to just ignore someone like that.

[LibertyEagle]

right... he looked so busy at 4:44. More like he was dodging some tough questions.

He told him NO at the very beginning, his aide explained that he was being briefed and Paul asked for him to call and make an appointment for them to talk.

He didn't "dodge" anything.

[LibertyEagle]

He wouldn't. He loves talking to people. It's not in his nature to just ignore someone like that.

Ron doesn't like rude people. You know that. What Luke did was rude and uncouth.

[MJU1983]

LOL wow.

I love this and the replies. Rand is the new religion apparently, you just gotta have faith!

[TomtheTinker]

Tom, in the past we didn't have so much to cut so it would be impossible to find someone in 1970 who proposed a 500 billion dollar cut.

Rand is wishy washy, do you support his drone stance? He is in between Dick Cheney and Ron Paul

I was talking in relative terms..500 billion is 1/7th of the budget..not exactly a drop in the ocean.


Dick Cheney/Rand paul..maybe some where inbetween Jim Demit and Ron Paul...but Cheney?? That's a little to far. Granter I would prefer our boy Schiff on the Senate floor..I feel pretty good about Rand.


As far as the drone bill goes I haven't had the chance to look into that deeply..from what I heard Rand proposed a bill that would enforce the 4th as far as drone use goes...

[green73]

Ron doesn't like rude people. You know that. What Luke did was rude and uncouth.

You've never seen a reporter pursue someone like that?

[ShowMeLiberty]

Jeebus, give me strength...

So many comments could be made but I have decided I will no longer engage with the willfully ignorant faction trying to divide us and derail our progress.

[jmdrake]

Not the same at all.

Sure it is. She wanted to keep talking to Ron about the newsletters and he was done talking about it. WAC wanted to talk to Rand about Bilderberg and endorsing Perry and Rand was done talking about it. Now we know good and well that Rand knows about the Bilderberg group. So there are two possibilities. 1) He's trying to infiltrate the GOP and appeal to mainstream GOP voters in order to move the liberty movement forward ask Ron asked him to or 2) He's sold out to the "enemy". Either way there's no way he would answer that question. Now, I don't know if WAC is secretly working with Rand to distance him from the conspiracy movement by going after him like they go after everyone else. If they are then good acting on their part and Rand's part. If they aren't in on this with Rand then they are pretty stupid. Imagine when Nathan Hale was spying on the British for George Washington, if a "fellow patriot" had gone up to him and said "Nathan. Why are you hanging around with the British? Didn't I see you having beers with George Washington and helping us plan the revolution? Who's side are you on? Come on Nathan tell me? Did you sell us out?"

[jmdrake]

You've never seen a reporter pursue someone like that?

Sure. And it's rude. You're point?

[green73]

Sure it is. She wanted to keep talking to Ron about the newsletters and he was done talking about it. WAC wanted to talk to Rand about Bilderberg and endorsing Perry and Rand was done talking about it. Now we know good and well that Rand knows about the Bilderberg group. So there are two possibilities. 1) He's trying to infiltrate the GOP and appeal to mainstream GOP voters in order to move the liberty movement forward ask Ron asked him to or 2) He's sold out to the "enemy". Either way there's no way he would answer that question. Now, I don't know if WAC is secretly working with Rand to distance him from the conspiracy movement by going after him like they go after everyone else. If they are then good acting on their part and Rand's part. If they aren't in on this with Rand then they are pretty stupid. Imagine when Nathan Hale was spying on the British for George Washington, if a "fellow patriot" had gone up to him and said "Nathan. Why are you hanging around with the British? Didn't I see you having beers with George Washington and helping us plan the revolution? Who's side are you on? Come on Nathan tell me? Did you sell us out?"

So it wasn't about Rand being too busy to talk; it was about the nature of the questions. I'll say it again: Ron would never blow somebody off like that.

[LibertyEagle]

LOL wow.

I love this and the replies. Rand is the new religion apparently, you just gotta have faith!

No. You critique him about real things that he has done. Not make shit up and try to turn it into something.

[jmdrake]

**Patiently waiting for others, like me, to come to the realization that Alex Jones and Co. have been controlled opposition all along.**

Been about 2 years since I became suspicious and apprx. a year since I have known it. It's hard to admit I could have been so wrong, but here it is folks.

Maybe everybody's controlled opposition. Maybe Alex Jones and the Pauls are staging all of this. Who knows? Doesn't change what I need to do.

[jmdrake]

So it wasn't about Rand being too busy to talk; it was about the nature of the questions. I'll say it again: Ron would never blow somebody off like that.

Except when he did.

[JohnGalt23g]

You've never seen a reporter pursue someone like that?

Someone who says call my office for an interview? Doing so after that offer is rude, and obnoxious, and juvenile.

[green73]

Sure. And it's rude. You're point?

Sure. If it was any other pol I'm sure you'd be on the side of the reporter.

[LibertyEagle]

So it wasn't about Rand being too busy to talk; it was about the nature of the questions. I'll say it again: Ron would never blow somebody off like that.

How can you say that when he has already been on the record being quite forthcoming about it?

[wongster41]

Sure it is. She wanted to keep talking to Ron about the newsletters and he was done talking about it. WAC wanted to talk to Rand about Bilderberg and endorsing Perry and Rand was done talking about it. Now we know good and well that Rand knows about the Bilderberg group. So there are two possibilities. 1) He's trying to infiltrate the GOP and appeal to mainstream GOP voters in order to move the liberty movement forward ask Ron asked him to or 2) He's sold out to the "enemy". Either way there's no way he would answer that question. Now, I don't know if WAC is secretly working with Rand to distance him from the conspiracy movement by going after him like they go after everyone else. If they are then good acting on their part and Rand's part. If they aren't in on this with Rand then they are pretty stupid. Imagine when Nathan Hale was spying on the British for George Washington, if a "fellow patriot" had gone up to him and said "Nathan. Why are you hanging around with the British? Didn't I see you having beers with George Washington and helping us plan the revolution? Who's side are you on? Come on Nathan tell me? Did you sell us out?"

Seriously, how can you say both interviews are the same? Rand dodge the interview right off the bat, Ron at least answered the question in that interview and the CNN bot wouldn't accept it as an answer about the newsletter.

[green73]

Except when he did.

There's no use trying to communicate with you sometimes.

[green73]

How can you say that when he has already been on the record being quite forthcoming about it?

Back in 2010?

[JohnGalt23g]

Jeebus, give me strength...

So many comments could be made but I have decided I will no longer engage with the willfully ignorant faction trying to divide us and derail our progress.

Don't you know? We haven't made any progress... all we've done is elect neocon traitors like Rand Paul to office. Noecon traitors, who just happen to introduce bills to apply 4th amendment protections to domestic drone use. HOW DARE HE NOT DEMAND THAT NO DRONES EVER BE USED IN AMERICA EVER FOR ANY REASON!!!!!! eVER!11!!1!!1!!!!1ELEVENTY!!!11!!

[MJU1983]

Someone who says call my office for an interview? Doing so after that offer is rude, and obnoxious, and juvenile.

LOL

For some reason I don't think you'd say that if it wasn't Rand Paul. Every politician is going to say "call my office" knowing nothing will come of it. Even Bill O'Reilly sends his boy out for these types of "interviews" but try the same tactic on O'Reilly himself...he'll report you to the police.

[LibertyEagle]

Back in 2010?

Are you worried that he changed his mind, or what? :confused:

[LibertyEagle]

LOL

For some reason I don't think you'd say that if it wasn't Rand Paul. Every politician is going to say "call my office" knowing nothing will come of it. Even Bill O'Reilly sends his boy out for these types of "interviews" but try the same tactic on O'Reilly himself...he'll report you to the police.

So, your argument is that because most other politicians do that, Rand will too?

[jmdrake]

Seriously, how can you say both interviews are the same? Rand dodge the interview right off the bat, Ron at least answered the question in that interview and the CNN bot wouldn't accept it as an answer about the newsletter.

Ron's never answered the question of who wrote the newsletters. If WAC had simply gone with "Can you tell us why you endorsed Mitt Romney" without going immediately into a conspiracy land Rand might have given them some kind of answer before blowing them off. Tell me this. What do you possibly think might be gained for anybody by Rand talking about the Bilderberg group and this juncture?

[LibertyEagle]

Don't you know? We haven't made any progress... all we've done is elect neocon traitors like Rand Paul to office. Noecon traitors, who just happen to introduce bills to apply 4th amendment protections to domestic drone use. HOW DARE HE NOT DEMAND THAT NO DRONES EVER BE USED IN AMERICA EVER FOR ANY REASON!!!!!! eVER!11!!1!!1!!!!1ELEVENTY!!!11!!

Ha ha. Well, I wish he would. :p

[schiffheadbaby]

Don't you know? We haven't made any progress... all we've done is elect neocon traitors like Rand Paul to office. Noecon traitors, who just happen to introduce bills to apply 4th amendment protections to domestic drone use. HOW DARE HE NOT DEMAND THAT NO DRONES EVER BE USED IN AMERICA EVER FOR ANY REASON!!!!!! eVER!11!!1!!1!!!!1ELEVENTY!!!11!!

Wow, so you support the use of Drones in America? Figured that a Rand apologist would be on this side but I'm glad you told us all this.

Wonder if all the other Randy apologists feel the same way

[green73]

Are you worried that he changed his mind, or what? :confused:

Is he like that on all issues that he's previously addressed?

[jmdrake]

There's no use trying to communicate with you sometimes.

Yeah. I should apply for the job of Rand's press secretary. Knowing when not to communicate is sometimes a virtue. ;)

[wongster41]

Are you worried that he changed his mind, or what? :confused:

He obviously changed his mind about supporting mitt for presidency.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsAiyoifYy8&list=PL2A57FA918086B934&index=19&feature=plpp_video

[JohnGalt23g]

Ha ha. Well, I wish he would. :p

I have no problem with drones in general. I can foresee a day when drones are used to do work in rescue situations and disaster situations that is simply too hazardous for humans, and I don't want to preclude their existence. I just want the Fourth Amendment to keep pace with technology the Framers never could have imagined.

[green73]

Yeah. I should apply for the job of Rand's press secretary. Knowing when not to communicate is sometimes a virtue. ;)

Well reasoned as always.

[LibertyEagle]

Is he like that on all issues that he's previously addressed?

Are you wanting to ask him to reiterate every single thing he has every said?

Fair enough.

Make an appointment. :p :)

[MJU1983]

So, your argument is that because most other politicians do that, Rand will too?

Why wouldn't he? Do you think he hired morons to run his offices? They aren't going to let him do an interview with Luke or anyone like Luke. Rand is part of the team now, he's not "fringe" anymore. Do you think he will take a picture of himself pulling the lever for Mitt in November?

[jmdrake]

Sure. If it was any other pol I'm sure you'd be on the side of the reporter.

It depends on if I'm wanting the reporter to be rude or not. I don't mind that people threw snowballs at Sean Hannity, but that's because I don't like Sean Hannity. That doesn't mean that throwing snowballs at someone you don't personally know isn't rude. I was glad to see the Iraqi reporter throw a shoe at Bush. That doesn't mean shoe throwing isn't rude.

[JohnGalt23g]

Wow, so you support the use of Drones in America? Figured that a Rand apologist would be on this side but I'm glad you told us all this.

Wonder if all the other Randy apologists feel the same way

So, since you oppose waterboarding, do you also think we should outlaw water?

[green73]

Are you wanting to ask him to reiterate every single thing he has every said?

Fair enough.

Make an appointment. :p :)

No. I'm saying Ron Paul would never treat someone like that. Since when is Rand shy and retiring about repeating himself?

[wongster41]

Ron's never answered the question of who wrote the newsletters. If WAC had simply gone with "Can you tell us why you endorsed Mitt Romney" without going immediately into a conspiracy land Rand might have given them some kind of answer before blowing them off. Tell me this. What do you possibly think might be gained for anybody by Rand talking about the Bilderberg group and this juncture?

Yes ron have actually, plenty of times before that interview. He said he didn't write them, and disavows them. People are up in arms right now from the endorsement and the alternative media is asking questions that the MSM aren't asking, there is nothing wrong with that.

[truthsaga]

Did anyone take into account that the Infowars / We are Change people are doing this to attract more audience to their brand? How hard would it of been for them to schedule a meeting with Rand on a number of topics and brought up the bilderberg question? Then, we can see his reaction - all I noticed from the start of the video is Rand greeting them and telling them to schedule an appointment.

If enough of us were in local positions and seated in Congress this endorsement would mean a lot more on the basis of principle, but we have someone representing us in the Senate and we want to cast him off for this? It's like having the title shot and calling the fight before it starts.. all the time everyone has put in has been wasted.

I am sure what everyone wants is Rand to spend 30 years isolated and being the NO vote in the Senate.

[AuH20]

Yes ron have actually, plenty of times before that interview. He said he didn't write them, and disavows them. People are up in arms right now from the endorsement and the alternative media is asking questions that the MSM aren't asking, there is nothing wrong with that.

For what purpose?? We Are Change has an agenda to portray to Rand Paul as an agent for an international cabal. All questions are funneled in that direction to make Rand Paul look bad no matter what he says. If he does agree with everything Radomski says he is later marginalized and put on the cover of Time as a kook, when he is locked in a fierce battle in the 2016 Republican primary. All our money is flushed down the toilet in an instant.

[PatriotOne]

Maybe everybody's controlled opposition. Maybe Alex Jones and the Pauls are staging all of this. Who knows? Doesn't change what I need to do.

I'll agree with that (except for the Paul part being opposition). It doesn't change what we need to do and I was pleased to see you not jump on the "Rand Paul is the Antichrist" bandwagon. Though some may disagree with what needs to be done. Alex and Co. are attempting to derail Rand and divide because we are over the target now. Controlled opposition has gone full monty trying to divide while trying to maintain "plausible deniability" at the same time.

Reading about how the hippy movement (free love, high on drugs all the time, anti-establishment, wears flowers in their hair, has sex in public) was inserted into the anti-war movement to create polarization of the conservatives and other regular people is interesting. Keep them infighting!).

[pcgame]

......

[LibertyEagle]

I have no problem with drones in general. I can foresee a day when drones are used to do work in rescue situations and disaster situations that is simply too hazardous for humans, and I don't want to preclude their existence. I just want the Fourth Amendment to keep pace with technology the Framers never could have imagined.

The Framers covered it quite fine.


4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What concerns me the most are the exclusions that are in the bill. Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall, the language in the bill insisted on warrants, but did have exceptions to that rule. It is the exceptions that worry me.

[wongster41]

For what purpose?? We Are Change has an agenda to portray to Rand Paul as an agent for an international cabal. All questions are funneled in that direction to make Rand Paul look bad no matter what he says. If he does agree with everything Radomski says he is later marginalized and put on the cover of Time as a kook, when he is in the Republican primary in 2016. All our money is flushed down the toilet in an instant.

He's going to be marginalized later on anyways in 2016, the establishment will make sure of that, to think otherwise is just crazy. We've seen and know what the MSM, the GOP have done to Ron, what makes you think it'll be different for his son?

[LibertyEagle]

No. I'm saying Ron Paul would never treat someone like that. Since when is Rand shy and retiring about repeating himself?

Who said he was? He was busy, dude. Have you never been busy? He asked for Luke to call and make an appointment and that they would talk.

Why are you trying so hard to make something out of this?

[LibertyEagle]

He's going to be marginalized later on anyways in 2016, the establishment will make sure of that, to think otherwise is just crazy. We've seen and know what the MSM, the GOP have done to Ron, what makes you think it'll be different for his son?

So, your goal is to beat them to the punch and marginalize him right now?

[AuH20]

He's going to be marginalized later on anyways in 2016, the establishment will make sure of that, to think otherwise is just crazy. We've seen and know what the MSM, the GOP have done to Ron, what makes you think it'll be different for his son?

Rand plays it a lot closer to the vest than Ron. Even his opponent Trey Grayson bemoaned to a reporter that he was waiting for Rand Paul to make some highly controversial comment like Ron, but never did during the primary campaign. He even complimented Rand on his message discipline.

[Pisces]

Why should Rand answer questions about Romney being at Bilderberg when the evidence is really not clear that he was? Four anonymous people say they saw him, but the day they say he was there, he was actually in California doing his Solyndra photo-op. Rand would look like an idiot if he talked about this. Romney may be the Bilderberger's guy but there's no proof he was actually at the meeting and in fact the evidence against it is stronger than the evidence in favor of it. If Luke were a better journalist he would know this.

[jmdrake]

Yes ron have actually, plenty of times before that interview. He said he didn't write them, and disavows them. People are up in arms right now from the endorsement and the alternative media is asking questions that the MSM aren't asking, there is nothing wrong with that.

Ron has never answered the question of who wrote the newsletters. Saying he didn't write them and disavowing them is different. And Rand's already answered the question of why he endorsed Mitt Romney. He said before we even got close to this point that he would endorse the eventual nominee. He said when he was running for senator in KY that he would endorse his opponent Trey Grayson if he lost the primary. So for Rand not to endorse Mitt Romney now would be for Rand to break a promise. Is that what people want? I think it's good that WAC has Rand on record for saying that he knows about the Bilderberg group. Now people have to use their brains and figure some things out for themselves. If you're trying an undercover operation you aren't going to say what you really think on video.

[July]

I have no problem with drones in general. I can foresee a day when drones are used to do work in rescue situations and disaster situations that is simply too hazardous for humans, and I don't want to preclude their existence. I just want the Fourth Amendment to keep pace with technology the Framers never could have imagined.

People are still looking at the symptom, not the cause. The cause of the police state isnt drones, but the constant state of war/state of emergency, coupled with the subsidizing of companies who produce this technology--who must find and justify uses for it. Ron taught me that.

[wongster41]

So, your goal is to beat them to the punch and marginalize him right now?

I'm saying he should redeem himself and stand on principle like his father. Why cater to the establishment that have shut out the message of liberty and conservative values for so long?

[JohnGalt23g]

The Framers covered it quite fine.



What concerns me the most are the exclusions that are in the bill. Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I recall, the language in the bill insisted on warrants, but did have exceptions to that rule. It is the exceptions that worry me.

And yet, nothing in the 4th about one's vehicle on public roads. Plain text reading of the Constitution (and I assume we all believe in textualism) would not cover computer drives, as they are not made out of "paper". Now, we have had judicial decisions covering these, which is good. I for one would be happier if Congress participated in such upgrades. Which is what Sen Paul is doing... asking that Congress lead the way on this.

And we should always be concerned about exceptions to BOR protections, and always vigilant about them. But only the most foolhardy of us would argue against all time/place/manner restrictions on the First Amendment.

Unless of course you like people falsely shouting "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater...

[TomtheTinker]

Obomney 12 marches forward and what use to be known as the liberty movement sits on the interweb and bickers with their closest allies.


Rand is only one piece of the puzzle..suppport him if you want..wait and see if you will..turn your back on him if you must. STOP FIGHTING EACH OTHER!!!

[donnay]

The Rand apologists are out in full force.

Watch him with Glenn Beck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWOkGBFYyw


Yeah that was some interview. Dr. Paul always praised the internet! Rand seems to think the unhappy supporters on the internet are rather small? Hmm...Interesting how he said this small group on the internet are these angry folks and are the ones preaching violence to him and his family? WTH? The extremist on the internet? That seems a wee bit exaggerated and quite disingenuous--but I expected nothing less, really.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1HkYHMFMzQ&feature=player_embedded

Commonality? Even Doug Wead said in an interview this week; "There is nothing Romney can give em. Audit the Fed? You have got to be kidding, 80% of America wants to audit the fed. Asking Romney to audit the Fed is kind of like asking a 10 year old kid to eat an ice cream for me." Wead goes on to say, "Of course they won't really audit the Fed it will be some watered down phony version of auditing the Fed."

So who is lying? I do not believe this is rocket science, anyone paying attention can see the mixed messages.

I do question Rand's timing and how this message was delivered. Those who have been in the Ron Paul movement know, in their heart of hearts, Hannity was no friend to the liberty movement whatsoever!

If people would be honest with themselves for just a minute and break away from the false left/right paradigm, and realize the system is corrupt and to try and work within the system is futile. It has been tried before and failed miserably. Dr. Paul used the system to bring forth ideas, and ideas that are bullet proof. Liberty is worth fighting for, and to make compromises to gain a little liberty or recoup what has already been taken by the corrupt system is a fools errand.

"Those who do not study history are DOOMED to repeat it."

[LibertyEagle]

I'm saying he should redeem himself and stand on principle like his father. Why cater to the establishment that have shut out the message of liberty and conservative values for so long?

Watch how he votes. That is what I am going to do. The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak.

[AdamT]

Seriously lame....

[wongster41]

Ron has never answered the question of who wrote the newsletters. Saying he didn't write them and disavowing them is different. And Rand's already answered the question of why he endorsed Mitt Romney. He said before we even got close to this point that he would endorse the eventual nominee. He said when he was running for senator in KY that he would endorse his opponent Trey Grayson if he lost the primary. So for Rand not to endorse Mitt Romney now would be for Rand to break a promise. Is that what people want? I think it's good that WAC has Rand on record for saying that he knows about the Bilderberg group. Now people have to use their brains and figure some things out for themselves. If you're trying an undercover operation you aren't going to say what you really think on video.


He have also stated he don't know who wrote it

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-%E2%80%9Ci-could%E2%80%9D-find-out-who-wrote-newsletters/


so the two interviews you're comparing is night and day, hardly the same.

[jmdrake]

I'll agree with that (except for the Paul part being opposition). It doesn't change what we need to do and I was pleased to see you not jump on the "Rand Paul is the Antichrist" bandwagon. Though some may disagree with what needs to be done. Alex and Co. are attempting to derail Rand and divide because we are over the target now. Controlled opposition has gone full monty trying to divide while trying to maintain "plausible deniability" at the same time.

Reading about how the hippy movement (free love, high on drugs all the time, anti-establishment, wears flowers in their hair, has sex in public) was inserted into the anti-war movement to create polarization of the conservatives and other regular people is interesting. Keep them infighting!).

You know what? Anything is possible, including the Pauls being controlled opposition. Over the years after learning about illuminati handshakes and signals, seeing those from Dr. Paul didn't give me the warm fuzzies. And of course there's the possibility that it was innocent. After all the "diablo" and "I love you" signals are the same. But Dr. Paul has to know that lots of his followers are into stuff like that, so why give ammo to the fringe? I did wonder why Alex Jones never picked up on that, when he talks about the Michele Obama vogue cover that doesn't really look like any hand signal unless you have a super active imagination. At the end of the day I go by what Dr. Paul does and what Rand does. As for Alex Jones, so far I've consistently heard him support the Pauls (Rand an Ron) and just attack theirs strategy. Some of his writers have gone overboard. (Kurt Nimmo specifically).

[jmdrake]

He have also stated he don't know who wrote it

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-%E2%80%9Ci-could%E2%80%9D-find-out-who-wrote-newsletters/


so the two interviews you're comparing is night and day, hardly the same.

He can say that. But there's no way that's true. Or if it is true than he's taken no real effort to find out who did write it. But hey, believe what you want.

[LibertyEagle]

And yet, nothing in the 4th about one's vehicle on public roads. Plain text reading of the Constitution (and I assume we all believe in textualism) would not cover computer drives, as they are not made out of "paper". Now, we have had judicial decisions covering these, which is good. I for one would be happier if Congress participated in such upgrades. Which is what Sen Paul is doing... asking that Congress lead the way on this.

And we should always be concerned about exceptions to BOR protections, and always vigilant about them. But only the most foolhardy of us would argue against all time/place/manner restrictions on the First Amendment.

Unless of course you like people falsely shouting "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater...



Where Is The Outrage Over the Domestic Use of Drones?
And where have all the Jeffersonians gone?

Andrew Napolitano | June 7, 2012


For the past few weeks, I have been writing in this column about the government's use of drones and challenging their constitutionality on Fox News Channel where I work. I once asked on air what Thomas Jefferson would have done if--had drones existed at the time--King George III had sent drones to peer inside the bedroom windows of Monticello. I suspect that Jefferson and his household would have trained their muskets on the drones and taken them down. I offer this historical anachronism as a hypothetical only, not as one who is urging the use of violence against the government.

Nevertheless, what Jeffersonians are among us today? When drones take pictures of us on our private property and in our homes, and the government uses the photos as it wishes, what will we do about it? Jefferson understood that when the government assaults our privacy and dignity, it is the moral equivalent of violence against us. The folks who hear about this, who either laugh or groan, cannot find it humorous or boring that their every move will be monitored and photographed by the government.

Don't believe me that this is coming? The photos that the drones will take may be retained and used or even distributed to others in the government so long as the "recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function" in requiring them. And for the first time since the Civil War, the federal government will deploy military personnel inside the United States and publicly acknowledge that it is deploying them "to collect information about U.S. persons."

continued... (http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/07/where-is-the-outrage-over-the-domestic-u)
...

[LibertyEagle]

He has a deaf grandkid, Drake.

[ShowMeLiberty]

Don't you know? We haven't made any progress... all we've done is elect neocon traitors like Rand Paul to office. Noecon traitors, who just happen to introduce bills to apply 4th amendment protections to domestic drone use. HOW DARE HE NOT DEMAND THAT NO DRONES EVER BE USED IN AMERICA EVER FOR ANY REASON!!!!!! eVER!11!!1!!1!!!!1ELEVENTY!!!11!!

Oh yeah..... I guess I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. :p

[wongster41]

He can say that. But there's no way that's true. Or if it is true than he's taken no real effort to find out who did write it. But hey, believe what you want.

I was just pointing out that those two interviews are different and for you to try to connect them together was a weak arguement. Ron have been stating for the longest time he doesn't know who wrote the newsletters and disapproves it, and when the CNN reporter kept pushing the issue hoping to get a different answer, thats when he bailed on the interview.

Rand on the other hand haven't given a recent interview about bilderberg, and bailed from the very beginning of the interview and dodging some legitimate questions that have raised due to his endorsement.

[jmdrake]

He's going to be marginalized later on anyways in 2016, the establishment will make sure of that, to think otherwise is just crazy. We've seen and know what the MSM, the GOP have done to Ron, what makes you think it'll be different for his son?

Because Rand is playing an entirely different game than Ron played. Someone who says the raid to get Osama Bin Laden was not necessary is easy to marginalize. (See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/) Oh sure, I agree the raid was not necessary, but that's because I believe Osama Bin Laden was already dead. And of course I have no political viability because I am open about that belief. If I was advising someone who was running for public office I would tell them never to say anything critical of the OBL raid or that you believed it was a fake. And I would keep WAC as far away from my candidate as possible. (Unless I wanted the word to get out that WAC didn't like my candidate).

[truthsaga]

I think we are still going through the stages of Grief like Doug Wead talked about earlier this week.

Soon we are just going to have to "hug it out" and get back to what I have been doing the last six years of my life.

How awesome would it be if Rand tweeted to all of us - ::Hug it out:: lol

[jmdrake]

He has a deaf grandkid, Drake.

And the explanation for the strange handshake is....? Regardless that's not a rabbit hole I'm interested in going down. In fact judging people based on hand signals is another thing I disagree with Alex Jones on. Either Alex should have been on Ron about that or he should have assumed that other famous people might have deaf relatives.

[jmdrake]

I was just pointing out that those two interviews are different and for you to try to connect them together was a weak arguement. Ron have been stating for the longest time he doesn't know who wrote the newsletters and disapproves it, and when the CNN reporter kept pushing the issue hoping to get a different answer, thats when he bailed on the interview.

Rand on the other hand haven't given a recent interview about bilderberg, and bailed from the very beginning of the interview and dodging some legitimate questions that have raised due to his endorsement.

Three questions.

1) Why do you want Rand to talk (more) about Bilderberg?

2) What question do you still have about the endorsement?

3) Since Rand said long ago he would endorse the eventual nominee, do you think he should have broken his promise?

[No Free Beer]

When I first saw what Rand had done, I was upset/mad/sad/etc. , just ask LibertyEagle.

Since it first happened, I have calmed down and rationalized the decision and realized it was the right one. Well, not entirely. I still disagree with the timing, but that's a whole different argument.

I found myself damning Rand on the one thing I admired about him when I was first introduced to him: his ability to play politics.

Whether you all want to admit it or not, you have to play the game in order to bring about real change. If you think a person can just get into office and ignore everyone, and get stuff done, you are wrong. So you have a choice, take your hits to put yourself and your movement into a position of high significance, or remain on the sidelines, yelling..."HERE! OVER HERE!" Not gonna happen.

Either way, people like We Are Change and Alex Jones are just acting like a bunch of little children who didn't get their lollipops. They are just dividing people.

Don't forget what it took for us to declare our independence. If you don't know what I am talking about (the deals that were made), than you need to go do your own research.

As to the Glenn Beck interview, I don't seem to understand what the hell some of you are talking about. I completely agree with LibertyEagle, Rand is pissed at all the irrational people who have said some pretty hurtful and stupid things. It's one thing to voice your opinion, it's another to make threats and to tell him to go to hell. Again, children without their lollipops. Rand's interview with Beck was great. You wanna know why? Because he has them all right where he wants them.

To be honest, for all of you who live and die by everything Alex Jones says and who write hurtful things to Rand and/or Ron, we don't want you in this movement, regardless of how long you've been in it. You are the reason we run into problems. The establishment is going to be watching our every move now, and when you do something as stupid as writing such nonsense on Rand's FB page, you are only hurting our cause because you allow the establishment to point and say, "look at those crazies!"

Grow up.

[wongster41]

Because Rand is playing an entirely different game than Ron played. Someone who says the raid to get Osama Bin Laden was not necessary is easy to marginalize. (See: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/) Oh sure, I agree the raid was not necessary, but that's because I believe Osama Bin Laden was already dead. And of course I have no political viability because I am open about that belief. If I was advising someone who was running for public office I would tell them never to say anything critical of the OBL raid or that you believed it was a fake. And I would keep WAC as far away from my candidate as possible. (Unless I wanted the word to get out that WAC didn't like my candidate).

This is all speculations, and only time will tell what's going on but I HIGHLY doubt the GOP establishment will hand the nomination to Rand if he decides to run in 2016 because he's being nice to them. The two party system is for wars, more spendings, more welfare, everything rand is not.

[KingRobbStark]

Im not ron paul revolution, I am for revolution. I trust what is going on, and frankly the only way to really get change in the system is to infilterate it in the way rand is doing. There is no element of sell out.

He is doing what is necessary to bring credibility to the liberty movement. Its a step in the right direction. Total change wont ever happen overnight, to think otherwise is delusional.

I agree. It's as ridiculous as calling Ron Paul a sellout for joining the republican party.

[JohnGalt23g]

This is all speculations, and only time will tell what's going on but I HIGHLY doubt the GOP establishment will hand the nomination to Rand if he decides to run in 2016 because he's being nice to them. The two party system is for wars, more spendings, more welfare, everything rand is not.

They didn't just hand it to Romney, either. He had to work for it. He's been doing so for five years. I have to imagine he is growing to hate chicken at this point.

To quote that great student of power, Jock Ewing: "Nobody gives you power. Real power is something you TAKE!"

[wongster41]

Three questions.

1) Why do you want Rand to talk (more) about Bilderberg?

2) What question do you still have about the endorsement?

3) Since Rand said long ago he would endorse the eventual nominee, do you think he should have broken his promise?

I think you're asking the wrong questions, why is he dodging the questions and what is his true intent behind the endorsement? Nobody knows and that is why we're trying to get answers from the horses mouth.

[jmdrake]

This is all speculations, and only time will tell what's going on but I HIGHLY doubt the GOP establishment will hand the nomination to Rand if he decides to run in 2016 because he's being nice to them. The two party system is for wars, more spendings, more welfare, everything rand is not.

Who said that they would? :confused: Of course it's going to be a fight. The question is do you go into the fight with your shoes tied together and one are taped to your body or not? Rand already has strong name recognition so a "blackout" won't work. The other trick used against Ron was the "He's outside the party mainstream" argument. Rand is working hard to avoid that. They may dig up something from Rand's past to try to derail him. The "AquaBuddha" thing didn't work, but they might dig up other "victims". If all else fails there's the Dealay Plaza option.

[jmdrake]

I think you're asking the wrong questions, why is he dodging the questions and what is his true intent behind the endorsement? Nobody knows and that is why we're trying to get answers from the horses mouth.

I'm asking the right questions. You're just dodging them.

[JK/SEA]

1. these 'politicians' work for the people. Someone has a chance to ask some questions on video, then by god they need to be polite, and answer the motherfuckin interviewer. What is 2 minutes of time going to do?...prevent him from starting world war 3?....

2. All you Rand apologists would have no problem with Luke doing the same tactic with say Rumsfeld or McCain, or Graham, or Holder....riiiight?

3. Rand endorsed Mitt, and thats not a problem?....please explain to me how that isn't a problem, and stop with the BS of he's trying to build bridges to get his agenda through...it doesn't pass the smell test, and from here it smells like an open sewer.

[TheGrinch]

I think you're asking the wrong questions, why is he dodging the questions and what is his true intent behind the endorsement? Nobody knows and that is why we're trying to get answers from the horses mouth.
Watch the Peter Schiff and Ben Swann interviews with Rand. They actually set up appointments with him, and got real legitimate answers (really way more seemingly honest answers than you'd expect for a public interview about his stealth strategy).

[wongster41]

Who said that they would? :confused: Of course it's going to be a fight. The question is do you go into the fight with your shoes tied together and one are taped to your body or not? Rand already has strong name recognition so a "blackout" won't work. The other trick used against Ron was the "He's outside the party mainstream" argument. Rand is working hard to avoid that. They may dig up something from Rand's past to try to derail him. The "AquaBuddha" thing didn't work, but they might dig up other "victims". If all else fails there's the Dealay Plaza option.

Or maybe there won't be a fight, we can only speculate right now as to what Rand will or won't do. I just have to go by the facevalue right now and question his recent action.

[jmdrake]

Or maybe there won't be a fight, we can only speculate right now as to what Rand will or won't do. I just have to go by the facevalue right now and question his recent action.

Yeah. But you still haven't answered my questions. Rand showed that he would answer reporters who are respectful and don't go off into conspiracy theory lala land.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uOV1yquNIec

[JohnGalt23g]

...

It's like arguing at the dawn of recording technology that because such technology can be used to listen into somebody's home, the state should be precluded from owning tape recorders. Not only is it not going to happen, there are some uses of recording technology I want the state to have access to. I want 911 to be able to record phone calls for emergency responders. I want the Mafia to have to worry about being bugged.

But I also want both mafioso and car crash victims to be broadly (and I mean very broadly) protected by the Fourth Amendment.

Likewise, I like the idea of drones monitoring traffic on the roadways. Surely we can agree that is a legitimate responsibility of the State. Why shouldn't we expect them to undertake their task in the cheapest, most efficient manner possible, so long as the people are properly protected from the possible abuses that such efficiency might enable?

[July]

The establishment is going to be watching our every move now, and when you do something as stupid as writing such nonsense on Rand's FB page, you are only hurting our cause because you allow the establishment to point and say, "look at those crazies!".

That's pretty much what happened. I'm glad Rand defended us, saying it was just a small number.

[wongster41]

Yeah. But you still haven't answered my questions. Rand showed that he would answer reporters who are respectful and don't go off into conspiracy theory lala land.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uOV1yquNIec

so you're suggesting bilderberg is a conspiracy theory?

[PatriotOne]

You know what? Anything is possible, including the Pauls being controlled opposition. As for Alex Jones, so far I've consistently heard him support the Pauls (Rand an Ron) and just attack theirs strategy. Some of his writers have gone overboard. (Kurt Nimmo specifically).

If Ron was controlled opposition, he would be the GOP nominee in August. The media would not have spent the last 5 years marginalizing him, calling him a kook and fringe candidate every chance they got and we wouldn't have had to fight for every inch we have gained.

Alex is trying to maintain "plausible deniabilty" as far as his support of Ron/Rand by giving his writers and lapdogs the dirty work. Alex has control over the content on his website. In espionage, plausible deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or intelligence agency to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party.

[wongster41]

I'm asking the right questions. You're just dodging them.

No, Rand is dodging them.

[Brett85]

Did you all see Rand on Glenn Beck show?

What a prick

I listened to it. It was a fantastic interview.

[JohnGalt23g]

1. these 'politicians' work for the people. Someone has a chance to ask some questions on video, then by god they need to be polite, and answer the motherfuckin interviewer. What is 2 minutes of time going to do?...prevent him from starting world war 3?....

2. All you Rand apologists would have no problem with Luke doing the same tactic with say Rumsfeld or McCain, or Graham, or Holder....riiiight?

3. Rand endorsed Mitt, and thats not a problem?....please explain to me how that isn't a problem, and stop with the BS of he's trying to build bridges to get his agenda through...it doesn't pass the smell test, and from here it smells like an open sewer.

1) Rand Paul works for the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, not wearederanged.org. As an officeholder, he has an office. In polite, adult society, someone who would like to speak with that (very busy) officeholder makes arrangements through that office. That way the Senator's very valuable time isn't wasted... especially by someone who, quite frankly, doesn't rate.

2) If Graham or McCain or Holder told them to call thier office for an interview, and they persisted, it would still be rude, obnoxious and juvenile. Yeah, I have a problem with all three of those, no matter who suffers.

3) Rand endorsed the man who has garnered enough delegates to the RNC that he is going to be the nominee of our party. And by our, I mean Ron Paul's party, Rand Paul's party, and my party. Sometimes politics dictates that you get your ass in line behind the leader of your party. Given that the current occupier of the White House maintains he has the authority to sic death robots on American citizens without judicial or Congressional oversight... yeah, this is one of those times.

[jmdrake]

so you're suggesting bilderberg is a conspiracy theory?

You're suggesting it's not? Don't get me wrong. I believe it's real. People have theories about what's going on. Hence conspiracy theory.

[jmdrake]

No, Rand is dodging them.

Ummm....how is Rand dodging the questions I asked you?

[Brett85]

Oh yea like presenting halfass 500 billion dollar budget cuts?

Rand has no charisma or real desire for change. He enjoys his time in DC, and yet everyone supports him because of his name (not a free-market solution)

A 500 billion budget cut is "halfass?" Wow, you're something else.

[Brett85]

Sometimes, I really hate this movement and now is one of those times.

The anarchists/liberals have taken over the movement.

[jmdrake]

If Ron was controlled opposition, he would be the GOP nominee in August.

Ummm....do you know what controlled opposition means? You don't let the controlled opposition win. That's the point. It's someone designed to take a dive from the beginning. Ron's lack of attacking Mitt Romney is questionable. When Mitt opened himself up for attack on more than one occasion Ron actually came to Mitt's defense. Why did Ron release the "etch-a-sketch" ad that attacked Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich instead of dog piling on Mitt like he was supposed to do if he was serious about winning? Why did Ron defend Mitt on the Bain capital attack when he could have just kept silent? People inside and out of the movement were raising the question of whether Ron was in some sort of alliance with Mitt. Folks said "their just good friends". Well Ron was friends with Michelle Bachman too. That didn't keep them from robustly attacking each other.

Edit: And let me reiterate I'm not saying I know Ron is controlled opposition. In fact I don't think he is. But if we're going to start questioning everyone.....

[wongster41]

You're suggesting it's not? Don't get me wrong. I believe it's real. People have theories about what's going on. Hence conspiracy theory.

Well, we know the Bilderberg meetings are happening so it's no longer a theory, we know people in high power or the elites of the world are getting together for annual meetings, we know for a fact that they do now. As to what's being discussed, we can only speculate but to call Bilderberg a conspiracy theory and dismissing it as nothing important and discrediting it as 'lala land' as you put it, just makes you look ignorant on the subject.

[BamaAla]

Oh look - a bunch of social rejects crying because someone they thought loved them has rejected them like everyone else. These hate Rand threads could be a great study for a psychology graduate student. Get over it...

[ShowMeLiberty]

http://chzjustcapshunz.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/funny-animal-captions-isolation.jpg

[jmdrake]

Well, we know the Bilderberg meetings are happening so it's no longer a theory, we know people in high power or the elites of the world are getting together for annual meetings, we know for a fact that they do now. As to what's being discussed, we can only speculate but to call Bilderberg a conspiracy theory and dismissing it as nothing important and discrediting it as 'lala land' as you put it, just makes you look ignorant on the subject.

Looking ignorant about conspiracy theories is politically smart. As I said, I have no personal political viability. If I was helping someone run for office I would want them to appear ignorant on the subject.

[wongster41]

Three questions.

1) Why do you want Rand to talk (more) about Bilderberg?

2) What question do you still have about the endorsement?

3) Since Rand said long ago he would endorse the eventual nominee, do you think he should have broken his promise?

I think I've already answered these questions you want me to answer so bad, but as I've already said, people have questions about the recent endorsement. His endorsement went against everything he stood for, so people now have questions, why is that hard to understand? Yes, rand might have said he would endorse the nominee but the timing is waaaaay off, we are still fighting the delegate process and working with lawyers to unbound those delegates to tampa. Rand's endorsement is just way off base and people have questions.

[TruthisTreason]

I have done a lot of work on the ground, another chance for you all to dismiss critics as noobs instead of the merits of the criticisms.

You came to Kentucky and helped Rand? Only noobs would cry traitor over an endorsement of the GOP nominee, especially considering Sen. Paul had been saying for MONTHS he would endorse the nominee.... OH Bilderberg!!!!!!

[jmdrake]

I think I've already answered these questions you want me to answer so bad, but as I've already said, people have questions about the recent endorsement. His endorsement went against everything he stood for, so people now have questions, why is that hard to understand? Yes, rand might have said he would endorse the nominee but the timing is waaaaay off, we are still fighting the delegate process and working with lawyers to unbound those delegates to tampa. Rand's endorsement is just way off base and people have questions.

No you haven't. But let me see if I can answer them for you.
1) Why do you want Rand to talk (more) about Bilderberg?

Let's see. You want Rand to ruin his political viability? You want more people to know about Bilderberg and having someone semi-famous talk about it helps that cause even if it ruins their political viability?

2) What question do you still have about the endorsement?

You're not satisfied with the "I promised I would do it" answer and so Rand keeping a promise doesn't matter to you?


3) Since Rand said long ago he would endorse the eventual nominee, do you think he should have broken his promise?

See above.

[TruthisTreason]

Noobs = those unfamiliar with WINNING elections.

[wongster41]

No you haven't. But let me see if I can answer them for you.
1) Why do you want Rand to talk (more) about Bilderberg?

Let's see. You want Rand to ruin his political viability? You want more people to know about Bilderberg and having someone semi-famous talk about it helps that cause even if it ruins their political viability?


You're just speculating there. It didn't ruin rons when he spoke about the Bilderberg, the video below is from 2008 btw.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plo-1rLZ3Jo



2) What question do you still have about the endorsement?

You're not satisfied with the "I promised I would do it" answer and so Rand keeping a promise doesn't matter to you?


3) Since Rand said long ago he would endorse the eventual nominee, do you think he should have broken his promise?

See above.

He could have endorse after tampa, like I said, timing is all wrong when we have grassroots still fighting the process.

[JK/SEA]

1) Rand Paul works for the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, not wearederanged.org. As an officeholder, he has an office. In polite, adult society, someone who would like to speak with that (very busy) officeholder makes arrangements through that office. That way the Senator's very valuable time isn't wasted... especially by someone who, quite frankly, doesn't rate.

2) If Graham or McCain or Holder told them to call thier office for an interview, and they persisted, it would still be rude, obnoxious and juvenile. Yeah, I have a problem with all three of those, no matter who suffers.

3) Rand endorsed the man who has garnered enough delegates to the RNC that he is going to be the nominee of our party. And by our, I mean Ron Paul's party, Rand Paul's party, and my party. Sometimes politics dictates that you get your ass in line behind the leader of your party. Given that the current occupier of the White House maintains he has the authority to sic death robots on American citizens without judicial or Congressional oversight... yeah, this is one of those times.

1. Rand is a U.S. Senator, his votes and actions affect all of us.

2. ambush journalism is a part of the free press ideal. 1st amendment applies. I'm fairly certain our founders had to and did deal with it.

3. I'm in this 'party' because of Ron, as are millions more. The 'party' is not where it needs to be for me to start licking boots just yet. Party over Principle , party before country. The beat goes on, and sadly too many swallow the lies and deceit and like good little boys and girls they follow, giggling and laughing all the way thinking they are right because someone who doesn't give a crap about you keeps their boot on your neck and tells you how to think, act and live your life all the while telling you how good things are....

fuck rand.

[Aratus]

stuttering john had his brief day in the sun when jennifer flowers became a houseshold world.
even so this amature video looks less slick & clever than mr. stuttering john's better efforts!!!

[LibertyEagle]

fuck rand.

An example of biting off your nose to spite your face. Rand is, BY FAR, the best Senator in D.C. BY FAR!!! Why don't you take your f comments and go direct them towards the open communists and socialists that are there. That wasn't a question; it was a statement.

[PatriotOne]

Ummm....do you know what controlled opposition means? You don't let the controlled opposition win.

Did Obama not feign opposition to the wars? He's President. Did George Bush not feign opposition to nation building wars? He was President.

[JK/SEA]

fuck rand, and the communists, and the nazis, and the NEOCONS....this place is being over run by them. I don't need to direct my comments at D.C.

[cheapseats]

Get over it...


...and GET WITH THE PROGRAM?

[patriot2008]

For all you know anyone who caused trouble like that could be even Obama supporters, neocons that really hate Paul or whatever. This "shilling" goes on all the time on the internet. Hope anyone who is a victim of this realizes this. Anyone who really stands for what Dr. Paul represents would not be that type!
I despise Romney and have mixed feelings on all of this till it plays out. I will only support a freedom candidate on how they vote!

The knuckelheads could be anyone and really support anything. We are seeing way more of this.

[jmdrake]

You're just speculating there. It didn't ruin rons when he spoke about the Bilderberg, the video below is from 2008 btw.

A. Rand has already talked about the Bilderberg group. Why does he need to keep talking about it?

B. Has Ron won a state primary by 23 points yet? Has he won a state primary at all?



He could have endorse after tampa, like I said, timing is all wrong when we have grassroots still fighting the process.

He talked to his dad about the timing. That's why Ron and other members of Ron's campaign have been pissing off the grassroots by slowly letting everybody in on the fact that the campaign is basically over. Sure, keep taking over local party committees because that's good for the long haul. But Ron hasn't been planning for a Tampa fight for a while now.

[jmdrake]

Did Obama not feign opposition to the wars? He's President. Did George Bush not feign opposition to nation building wars? He was President.

I'm sorry. Maybe you don't know what controlled opposition means. And I'm not saying this to be mean. Controlled opposition means that you are in a contest against someone else, but you aren't really planning on winning and you and your "opponent" both know it. Lot's of people have been questioning for a while now why Ron didn't really campaign against Romney.

[jmdrake]

1. Rand is a U.S. Senator, his votes and actions affect all of us.

Yes. And those votes have so far been most helpful. Rand almost killed the Iran sanctions bill and got language in it that there's no authorization for an attack against Iran. Rand's sponsored bills to end the TSA and drones spying on his. He's leading the charge in the senate for end the fed. I love Rand's votes (most of them anyway). It's Rand's statements that suck.

[Sola_Fide]

fuck rand, and the communists, and the nazis, and the NEOCONS....this place is being over run by them. I don't need to direct my comments at D.C.

We don't need no more socialists, communists, or libertarians in our libertarian movement!

[wongster41]

A. Rand has already talked about the Bilderberg group. Why does he need to keep talking about it?

B. Has Ron won a state primary by 23 points yet? Has he won a state primary at all?



He talked to his dad about the timing. That's why Ron and other members of Ron's campaign have been pissing off the grassroots by slowly letting everybody in on the fact that the campaign is basically over. Sure, keep taking over local party committees because that's good for the long haul. But Ron hasn't been planning for a Tampa fight for a while now.

I personally don't care for the bilderberg group question, but luke was obviously using that as a lead-in to the endorsement question incase you didn't pick it up. People have questions, plain and simple and luke and abby was asking some really hard questions.

The popular vote doesn't matter so I don't know why you even brought up about Ron winning a primary, what matters is the delegates and last I heard, the grassroots is still working hard to unbound those delegates.

[newyearsrevolution08]

I am just happy I am voting for Ron Paul and don't need to vote on rand this election cycle.

To me all he did was say some words but like many things TALK IS CHEAP but lets see what he actually puts into ACTION.

I think Rand can do and say whatever he so chooses and based on that he will either get votes or NOT and at that time he will see if his strategy was the best idea or not.

I however get the issue of playing politics especially when you dad never really did. I can see the GOP trying to almost MAKE SURE rand isn't another ron causing headaches for another 30-40 years just like his dad. If rand had to play nice to get in without him wanting to, I see that being due to his dads amazing uncorrupted career which odds are scares the poop out of the establishment.

I will wait for his votes, his records and everything else just as we did with ron paul and any other politician for that matter. Most will say and do anything to get into office, kind of like we will say and do anything during a job interview to secure that job. We all waiver at times with our morals but we hold rand to a higher standard due to his dad imo and odds are the gop does as well.

I can hope he is playing the game to get inside the beast but haven't politicians been trying to do that forever?

I do know that if Ron Paul endorsed Mccain in 08 due to "promising to endorse" I would have assumed him like every other politician out there and without being mean to rand as I am done with that stuff, if rand was the one who I first saw versus his dad and saw him endorse this guy, and vote for sanctions over here I don't see the rEVOLution really catching fire in the least because even if it was good intentioned compromisation it still would not have had the affect that his father was able to create from a NO COMPROMISE campaign in 07/08.

either way, I will vote for Rand in 2016 if he runs and if he proves to be yet another politician who then goes back on his word, at that time we will know it but until then all I hear are just "words".

Ron Paul for President

[JohnGalt23g]

1. Rand is a U.S. Senator, his votes and actions affect all of us.

2. ambush journalism is a part of the free press ideal. 1st amendment applies. I'm fairly certain our founders had to and did deal with it.

3. I'm in this 'party' because of Ron, as are millions more. The 'party' is not where it needs to be for me to start licking boots just yet. Party over Principle , party before country. The beat goes on, and sadly too many swallow the lies and deceit and like good little boys and girls they follow, giggling and laughing all the way thinking they are right because someone who doesn't give a crap about you keeps their boot on your neck and tells you how to think, act and live your life all the while telling you how good things are....

fuck rand.

1) By that logic, if Ron Paul were elected POTUS, he would have to stop and answer every peon on the street with a camcorder. Does that really sound like a good operating philosophy of government to you, or are you just pretending to be an idiot.

2) You think the Founders would have put up with rude juvenile punks interrupting their private conversations as they walked down the street? No. They would have ignored them, and then cut off any access they would have had to their office. Which is, I suspect, exactly what Sen Paul is about to do. Something that people who don't know the first thing about politics and the press clearly fail to grasp.

3) Grow up. You want to sit at the adult's table... learn how to behave as an adult. And in this case, that means not trying to take the politics out of politics.

[JK/SEA]

We don't need no more socialists, communists, or libertarians in our libertarian movement!

libertarian?...never mentioned libertarian. What i support is a Constitutional Republic and let the chips fall where they may.

[Sola_Fide]

Noobs = those unfamiliar with WINNING elections.

I'm convinced many people in this movement don't want to win. They see winning itself as a "compromise".


Where can I get a Hightower 2012 sig?

[jmdrake]

I personally don't care for the bilderberg group question, but luke was obviously using that as a lead-in to the endorsement question incase you didn't pick it up. People have questions, plain and simple and luke and abby was asking some really hard questions.

And his lead in question caused Rand to tune him out. Ben Swann, DailyPaulRadio and Peter Schiff, on the other hand, did good interviews and got the answers for those seriously wanting answers. Rand endorsed Romney because he said he would endorse the eventual nominee. The timing issue was discussed with his father.



The popular vote doesn't matter so I don't know why you even brought up about Ron winning a primary, what matters is the delegates and last I heard, the grassroots is still working hard to unbound those delegates.

One thing that Alex Jones has correctly pointed out is that the delegate strategy wasn't really worth a hill of beans. And Ron's statements about "be respectful" and "don't upset the convention" leads me to believe that he has no intention of staging a floor fight in Tampa. But hey, I could be proven wrong in August.

[Sola_Fide]

libertarian?...never mentioned libertarian. What i support is a Constitutional Republic and let the chips fall where they may.

Well, do you see Rand as a figure that stands against a constitutional republic? I don't.

[LibertyEagle]

...and GET WITH THE PROGRAM?

Do something constructive, yes.

But, then again, you are here to shill for Johnson.

[LibertyEagle]

fuck rand, and the communists, and the nazis, and the NEOCONS....this place is being over run by them. I don't need to direct my comments at D.C.

Huh? You think anyone who isn't running around saying f Rand is a communist, nazi or neocon? :confused:

[JK/SEA]

1) By that logic, if Ron Paul were elected POTUS, he would have to stop and answer every peon on the street with a camcorder. Does that really sound like a good operating philosophy of government to you, or are you just pretending to be an idiot.

2) You think the Founders would have put up with rude juvenile punks interrupting their private conversations as they walked down the street? No. They would have ignored them, and then cut off any access they would have had to their office. Which is, I suspect, exactly what Sen Paul is about to do. Something that people who don't know the first thing about politics and the press clearly fail to grasp.

3) Grow up. You want to sit at the adult's table... learn how to behave as an adult. And in this case, that means not trying to take the politics out of politics.

ahhh, i see. The ol' grow up comeback.

1. no, that statement borders on hysteria and lacks common sense. The vid with Rand and Luke is one case only. I'm not hearing and seeing this as some kind of epidemic. One guy and gal get close to Rand..WALKING DOWN THE PUBLIC STREET, and start asking questions. Evidently, according to you, the ambush journalism technique needs to be made illegal, correct?

2. ok, now your in fantasy land, and wishin' and hopin' Rand takes a page out of the 'marginalize' the bastards playbook. Sound familiar?

3. hah....not even worth commenting on. Aren't you late for your next boot licking lesson?....lol

[Sola_Fide]

...and GET WITH THE PROGRAM?

Yep. Get involved and win. Change the direction of the wind. No one here is saying vote for Romney (not me at least). I hope Romney's campaign goes down in flames.

But I have seen with my own eyes what happens when libertarians infiltrate the GOP and use GOP-sounding language to win. I've been a part of it twice in the past 2 years. IT DOES WORK!!!

[LibertyEagle]

Guys, guys, maybe Rand isn't what we think he is. But, don't you think that is better determined from his votes? Why can't we just watch his votes? Why do some want to hang him out to dry, already?

[JK/SEA]

Well, do you see Rand as a figure that stands against a constitutional republic? I don't.

look, he endorsed your favorite constitutional scholar didn't he?. Not i.

[Inkblots]

Guys, guys, maybe Rand isn't what we think he is. But, don't you think that is better determined from his votes? Why can't we just watch his votes? Why do some want to hang him out to dry, already?

Because loudly condemning the leaders of the movement is an easy and gratifying alternative to actually doing the hard and messy work of advancing liberty in the political sphere?

[Sola_Fide]

look, he endorsed your favorite constitutional scholar didn't he?. Not i.

Obligatory party endorsements don't change what the endorser believes or how he votes. Ron Paul is the best example of this.

[LibertyEagle]

look, he endorsed your favorite constitutional scholar didn't he?. Not i.

He had to or he would have been marginalized. Just like his father. He gave his word that he would endorse the nominee.

I still have issue with when he did it, but not that he did it. I also don't like some of the things he said. But, I'm not willing to throw in the towel on him. Not yet. His voting record thus far, while not perfect, is pretty damned good.

But, I am not looking for a messiah.

[trey4sports]

i didn't see anything bad about his interview on GBTV. Seemed rather good actually.

[LibertyEagle]

Because loudly condemning the leaders of the movement is an easy and gratifying alternative to actually doing the hard and messy work of advancing liberty in the political sphere?

I understand their concerns. I do. Well, not about this stupid Luke deal, but about a couple of other things. But, it's ridiculous to want to throw him out at this point. Watch him, yes. Throw him out? Hell no.

[r3volution]

we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .

[LibertyEagle]

we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .

Oh, please don't do that. It's just going to further the divide and conquer that appears to be some kind of agenda being played on us.

[Inkblots]

we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .

Eh, things will calm down in a few weeks. Most people, "Rand skeptics" included, will get back down to business preparing for November, and, in the long view, 2016. And those few who can't or won't accept the realities of the political process will leave, and we'll be a stronger movement for it. I don't see much cause for concern.

[Bruehound]

we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .

Truer words have not been spoken.

[JohnGalt23g]

ahhh, i see. The ol' grow up comeback.

1. no, that statement borders on hysteria and lacks common sense. The vid with Rand and Luke is one case only. I'm not hearing and seeing this as some kind of epidemic. One guy and gal get close to Rand..WALKING DOWN THE PUBLIC STREET, and start asking questions. Evidently, according to you, the ambush journalism technique needs to be made illegal, correct?

2. ok, now your in fantasy land, and wishin' and hopin' Rand takes a page out of the 'marginalize' the bastards playbook. Sound familiar?

3. hah....not even worth commenting on. Aren't you late for your next boot licking lesson?....lol

One guy and gal get close to Rand..WALKING DOWN THE PUBLIC STREET, and start asking questions.

And he tells them to fuck off, as is his right both as a citizen and a Senator to do. And they do not, but rather continue interrupting his private conversation. If someone interrupts my private conversation as I walk down the street, I too will tell them to fuck off. And if they continue being rude, juvenile and obnoxious, I will threaten them, and if necessary get physical with them. Perhaps an ass-kicking would instill some manners, not to mention a respect for laws against harassment, in them, something their parents failed rather badly to do.

Evidently, according to you, the ambush journalism technique needs to be made illegal, correct?

I think manners should be encouraged. And if that means some "journalist" (sorry, I can't help but snicker at the use of that word in this case) gets his ass kicked while engaging in harassing behavior, I certainly wouldn't cry any tears.

ok, now your in fantasy land, and wishin' and hopin' Rand takes a page out of the 'marginalize' the bastards playbook. Sound familiar?

They marginalized themselves. Rand has granted an interview to DP radio on this subject, and it was great, respectful, informative, and handled by adults from every perspective. A lesson that the children in this movement would do well to learn.

You want to know why Ron Paul was marginalized? Start by finding yourself a mirror.

hah....not even worth commenting on. Aren't you late for your next boot licking lesson?

I look forward to working on policy and politics with people who are willing to work with me. That there are more Romney and less Paul people than there would otherwise be save for the tantrum the Liberty brats are throwing will be my only regret.

And yeah... when you grow up, maybe you'll learn you sometimes have to do things you don't like doing, but you do anyways to make progress. Until you grow up, however, you can find me at the local GOP, working with the adults.

[PatriotOne]

I'm sorry. Maybe you don't know what controlled opposition means. And I'm not saying this to be mean. Controlled opposition means that you are in a contest against someone else, but you aren't really planning on winning and you and your "opponent" both know it. Lot's of people have been questioning for a while now why Ron didn't really campaign against Romney.

I'm not trying to be mean either but there are different ways to use "controlled opposition" and that is just one of many. Ron is not controlled opposition and it's getting a bit difficult to read you all of a sudden contemplating it. Ron did campaign against Romney and then switched tactics because he had to get through Santorum to get to him. Then it was decided they would never win the popular vote due to lack of billions of dollars so they went the delegate route instead. We just couldn't get it done so now they are switching tactics again with Rand. All the while increasing Ron's support the whole way. No one threw the race Drake, we just didn't win it. All this "Ron making an alliance with Romney" was nothing more than a smear tactic (in the eyes of his supporters) pushed by the media. There was not an ounce of truth to that. It worked on waaaaay too many people and I would have thought you would not have been one of them.

I've always admired your intellect, but from experience I know the best of us, including myself, can be fooled. I was one of them admittedly and I have freaking got an IQ of 135. I learned a shit load of information from Alex Jones. After all, propaganda isn't made out of whole cloth and probably ~ 90 truth. And it's wierd because I am still in awe of him because he's freaking brilliant at his job. Damn impressive.

Just trying to be honest here with everyone in hope's it will stem some of the bleeding of the movement's support when it comes to Alex Jone's supporter's. We need to come together once again to finish the job and not divide and I see Alex purposely attempting it by using his writers and lapdogs so he can maintain plausible deniability, IMHO.

Anyways, peace out. Don't want to make an enemy of you....I want to work with you.

[PatriotOne]

Double post.

[JK/SEA]

Guys, guys, maybe Rand isn't what we think he is. But, don't you think that is better determined from his votes? Why can't we just watch his votes? Why do some want to hang him out to dry, already?

The problem LE, and i respect your attempts at cooling things down, BUT, damn,,,you've heard that statement..honey, honey, poison, i'm sure many times, and for me Rand has tainted himself whether he knows it or not, and the bottom line is if he wants to get re-elected, or further the cause of Liberty, he really needs to show more principle than he's exhibiting. Mitts endorsement has driven lots of us to question Rands motives. Thats not my fault, or anyone elses..its Rands cross to bear. Believe me...i REALLY want to believe the Liberty movement has a chance. We can ill afford guys like Rand to play fast and loose with his bully pulpit. We need him. But not like this.

[ClydeCoulter]

There will be no "infiltrating". That would assume that the PTB or "establishement" or whatever is stupid, and that is not so.

[wongster41]

we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .

If anything they're trying to keep the movement on course, but apparently to you Rand endorsing romney is the right course for this movement.

[PatriotOne]

we are change , adam kokesh , alex jones are not going to stop until they tear this movement apart . i dont know if they will be successful but in the least they and there supporters have all but ruined this forum .

STFU moron. Truthers have friggin rocked as movers and shakers of this movement and been the leaders of many successful activites and fundraisers over the past 5 years. No doubt there is a bunch of them representing RP as delegates in Tampa. I have no desire to lose them. And I am not talking about Alex Jones, Adam Kokesh and We Are Change.

[TruthisTreason]

If anything they're trying to keep the movement on course, but apparently to you Rand endorsing romney is the right course for this movement. There are those that heard Ron's call and are working inside the GOP party to implement change on a bottom up level. Then there is everyone else. That is the movement. Those in the movement who want to bitch and groan about nothing ever changing can stay on the internet and do that. Some of us are becoming the change, or attempting to. Romney is but a few month fad who will be old news in a few months. The anti-Obama supporters can remember Ron Paul people as the assholes or the guys that were against Obama. There are things we agree with Romney on, at least those of us who are fiscal conservatives.

[JohnGalt23g]

If anything they're trying to keep the movement on course, but apparently to you Rand endorsing romney is the right course for this movement.

On course? For what?

[TheGrinch]

The problem LE, and i respect your attempts at cooling things down, BUT, damn,,,you've heard that statement..honey, honey, poison, i'm sure many times, and for me Rand has tainted himself whether he knows it or not, and the bottom line is if he wants to get re-elected, or further the cause of Liberty, he really needs to show more principle than he's exhibiting. Mitts endorsement has driven lots of us to question Rands motives. Thats not my fault, or anyone elses..its Rands cross to bear. Believe me...i REALLY want to believe the Liberty movement has a chance. We can ill afford guys like Rand to play fast and loose with his bully pulpit. We need him. But not like this.
Look, when we have a majority or he gets into whitehouse, then we won't have to comprimise.

But when you are trying to make change with a minority, you simply cannot go in and say "my way or the highway". Particularly with something as trivial as this... All it really is is a gesture like a friend would make, to say "Okay, if this is what you guys choose, I will back you on it". He's said all along he would endorse the nominee, whoever it was, because that's who the party chose. Our chairmen have to the same thing unfortunately to keep their positions.

The goal is to reform the republican party, and you're not going to do that by undermining and painting yourself as "hijacking" it.

So if you don't want comprimise, then get behind a local candidate, get them into office, and lets start getting a majority, so we don't have to play their game anymore... Until then, the stakes are too high to just take our ball and go home and not even try to play.

[Sola_Fide]

On course? For what?

Perpetual failure.

[LibertyEagle]

The problem LE, and i respect your attempts at cooling things down, BUT, damn,,,you've heard that statement..honey, honey, poison, i'm sure many times, and for me Rand has tainted himself whether he knows it or not, and the bottom line is if he wants to get re-elected, or further the cause of Liberty, he really needs to show more principle than he's exhibiting. Mitts endorsement has driven lots of us to question Rands motives. Thats not my fault, or anyone elses..its Rands cross to bear. Believe me...i REALLY want to believe the Liberty movement has a chance. We can ill afford guys like Rand to play fast and loose with his bully pulpit. We need him. But not like this.

We will just have to agree to disagree, then. I will keep my eye on Rand. But, I think he is exactly what we DO need. We need someone who can get through to the traditional conservatives who didn't understand the message from Ron. This has to happen, or we will never make much progress. And I think Rand can do it. I know he can do it, because I have seen him do it. His role is also to make us less downright scary to mainstream America. And Luke isn't helping that much... Please note that I did not say that he should sacrifice principle, because that should not happen.

If he ends up selling out, I will be at the forefront hanging him out to dry.

[JK/SEA]

One guy and gal get close to Rand..WALKING DOWN THE PUBLIC STREET, and start asking questions.

And he tells them to fuck off, as is his right both as a citizen and a Senator to do. And they do not, but rather continue interrupting his private conversation. If someone interrupts my private conversation as I walk down the street, I too will tell them to fuck off. And if they continue being rude, juvenile and obnoxious, I will threaten them, and if necessary get physical with them. Perhaps an ass-kicking would instill some manners, not to mention a respect for laws against harassment, in them, something their parents failed rather badly to do.

Evidently, according to you, the ambush journalism technique needs to be made illegal, correct?

I think manners should be encouraged. And if that means some "journalist" (sorry, I can't help but snicker at the use of that word in this case) gets his ass kicked while engaging in harassing behavior, I certainly wouldn't cry any tears.

ok, now your in fantasy land, and wishin' and hopin' Rand takes a page out of the 'marginalize' the bastards playbook. Sound familiar?

They marginalized themselves. Rand has granted an interview to DP radio on this subject, and it was great, respectful, informative, and handled by adults from every perspective. A lesson that the children in this movement would do well to learn.

You want to know why Ron Paul was marginalized? Start by finding yourself a mirror.

hah....not even worth commenting on. Aren't you late for your next boot licking lesson?

I look forward to working on policy and politics with people who are willing to work with me. That there are more Romney and less Paul people than there would otherwise be save for the tantrum the Liberty brats are throwing will be my only regret.

And yeah... when you grow up, maybe you'll learn you sometimes have to do things you don't like doing, but you do anyways to make progress. Until you grow up, however, you can find me at the local GOP, working with the adults.

Yeah, as a PCO in my 3rd term, i've been around the GOP faithful. They turn my stomach, and you sound just like them.