PDA

View Full Version : Jack Hunter: Can We Afford Not to Give Liberty Leaders the Benefit of the Doubt?




jct74
04-29-2013, 11:26 AM
I think Jack brings up some good points here but I'm sure some will disagree.

http://www.southernavenger.com/uncategorized/can-we-afford-not-to-give-liberty-leaders-the-benefit-of-the-doubt/

cajuncocoa
04-29-2013, 12:03 PM
OK, I'll bite. Sure, we definitely should give "Liberty Leaders" the benefit of the doubt. But liberty activists have been burned so many times our patience runs out when we are asked to give the same guy benefit of the doubt over and over and over again. How many times can one man misspeak?

ninepointfive
04-29-2013, 12:07 PM
This guy is more of a divider than a uniter. Too bad many of those types have rose high in the ranks of rp inc. They love that top down control all too much, and it shows.

It's really quite humorous as to what those guys immediately did to smear activists after Ron was no longer in the race, compared to Ron's recent comments as to how activism is up to the individual.

Sola_Fide
04-29-2013, 12:08 PM
There are three current politicians and one retired, that I always give the benefit of the doubt. Rep. Justin Amash, Rep. Thomas Massie, Sen. Rand Paul and former Congressman Ron Paul. Between their voting record and simply knowing where they stand, their principles, their heart, where they’re coming from – I generally know that even when I might occasionally be confused by something they’ve done, I should hear their side of the story.

I generally agree that those are the ones I give the benefit of the doubt to as well. But I think this is a fault on my part. I need to be more critical and consistent, or else I am just a follower.

Christian Liberty
04-29-2013, 12:11 PM
OK, I'll bite. Sure, we definitely should give "Liberty Leaders" the benefit of the doubt. But liberty activists have been burned so many times our patience runs out when we are asked to give the same guy benefit of the doubt over and over and over again. How many times can one man misspeak?

Rand is trying to toe a difficult line. He wants to appeal to libertarians and conservatives at the same time. The bottom line is, the two philosophies really have NOTHING in common. Now, I don't mind twisting terminology a bit, and if people want to think that "Conservative" actually means "Constitutionalist", which is how Ron used the term, I don't really mind. That said, most of the "Conservative" movement in this country is really a lot more like Rick Santorum. How do you appeal to those people and the Ron Paul people at the same time?

I don't have a clue what Rand Paul really thinks. He may well thing much like Ron Paul does personally. But that's not his strategy, and that's not what he's saying. Rand is trying to put together a package that will get support from both "Conservatives" and libertarians. I honestly don't know if that's possible. Its a little frustrating, but I can't TOTALLY fault him for giving it a shot.

Rand definitely needs a foil at this point, so he can look more "Conservative" than he really is without really changing his positions.

I wish Rand would be more pure... but then, he might not win if he did that. The thing is, I don't think he's actually going to win doing what he's doing anyway. Even if the people wanted him, the banksters and weapons contractors will not allow it. The "Defend your freedoms" security hawks will not allow it. I can't totally blame Rand Paul for trying to do what he can to win a losing battle, but I still don't think its going to work.

Oh... I just don't know. Consider me in the "Giving him the benefit of the doubt, voting for him, but still wishing he could be more like his dad."

Christian Liberty
04-29-2013, 12:13 PM
I generally agree that those are the ones I give the benefit of the doubt to as well. But I think this is a fault on my part. I need to be more critical and consistent, or else I am just a follower.

Amash is pretty solid. I don't know as much about Massie, but I haven't really heard anything I don't like from him either. Granted, Amash voted for sanctions, which is annoying but I'm more worried about ACTUAL war right now...

I'm just glad nobody mentioned Ted Cruz, who's already proven that he sucks...

LibertyEagle
04-29-2013, 12:17 PM
I saw no smear of any Ron Paul activists. I did see a couple who were more interested in plumping up the teat they were using to suck off of the liberty movement and at least one having a tantrum over the loss of his TV show and still refusing to take responsibility for his own actions.

People like Rand and Hunter are who have made our ideals more palatable to the masses and I thank them for it. Because without doing that, we would have remained an ineffectual little bump in history.

tsai3904
04-29-2013, 12:18 PM
I don't even see it as giving Rand the benefit of the doubt.

Rand said that he doesn't care if drones kill someone coming out of a liquor store carrying a gun and $50 in cash.

Many people took that comment literally and thought Rand supported killing a suspected thief with no due process for the ONLY reason of coming out of liquor store carrying a gun.

I would have a hard time thinking ANYONE supports that statement, let alone Rand. If McCain or Graham made that statement, I still wouldn't even believe it at face value.

The whole clarification of drones killing someone when they are an imminent threat is a different story though but it's still hard to believe all the comments I saw here and on Facebook who thought Rand supported killing a suspected thief for that reason alone.

LibertyEagle
04-29-2013, 12:18 PM
Amash is pretty solid. I don't know as much about Massie, but I haven't really heard anything I don't like from him either. Granted, Amash voted for sanctions, which is annoying but I'm more worried about ACTUAL war right now...

I'm just glad nobody mentioned Ted Cruz, who's already proven that he sucks...

No one is all good or all bad. ALL of their actions should be watched. No one should get a pass. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't get our facts straight before we go on the warpath.

By the way, Cruz has supported a lot of things that we also agree with.

Petar
04-29-2013, 12:20 PM
I say that we trust Rand. I want to promote this meme.

cajuncocoa
04-29-2013, 12:24 PM
No one is all good or all bad. ALL of their actions should be watched. No one should get a pass. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't get our facts straight before we go on the warpath.

By the way, Cruz has supported a lot of things that we also agree with.Who's "we"? You treat this board like your own personal collective, LE. Maybe some here do agree with Cruz...some on some things, others on everything. But that doesn't mean everyone agrees with him. Dammit, I forgot to put you on ignore the other day but I'm going to take care of that right now.

Christian Liberty
04-29-2013, 12:26 PM
No one is all good or all bad. ALL of their actions should be watched. No one should get a pass. But, that doesn't mean we shouldn't get our facts straight before we go on the warpath.

By the way, Cruz has supported a lot of things that we also agree with.

Cruz voted to give medical records to the Feds. As there's no authorization for that in the constitution, that makes him a traitor. I understand that Rand and Co aren't really able to say that right now, but I have nothing to lose so I can and will. Ted Cruz is a traitor and is just a part of the system. He should be Nuremberg Trialed along with everyone else if/when libertarians finally take over (I don't see that actually happening, but I disgress. Didn't Cruz vote for wars as well?

Christian Liberty
04-29-2013, 12:28 PM
Who's "we"? You treat this board like your own personal collective, LE. Maybe some here do agree with Cruz...some on some things, others on everything. But that doesn't mean everyone agrees with him. Dammit, I forgot to put you on ignore the other day but I'm going to take care of that right now.

Yeah, we don't all agree on everything, but I'm not sure exactly what he was talking about. I'm guessing almost everyone here would agree on ending the Fed, a noninterventionist foreign policy, and a reduction of government to its constitutional limits. Its at that point where it starts to get tricky. Some people here are anarchists, others (Like me) are minarchists, while others are just regular constitutionalists, paleocons, or some blend of paleoconservatism and libertarianism, or maybe even something else.

cajuncocoa
04-29-2013, 12:28 PM
Rand is trying to toe a difficult line. He wants to appeal to libertarians and conservatives at the same time. The bottom line is, the two philosophies really have NOTHING in common. Now, I don't mind twisting terminology a bit, and if people want to think that "Conservative" actually means "Constitutionalist", which is how Ron used the term, I don't really mind. That said, most of the "Conservative" movement in this country is really a lot more like Rick Santorum. How do you appeal to those people and the Ron Paul people at the same time?

I don't have a clue what Rand Paul really thinks. He may well thing much like Ron Paul does personally. But that's not his strategy, and that's not what he's saying. Rand is trying to put together a package that will get support from both "Conservatives" and libertarians. I honestly don't know if that's possible. Its a little frustrating, but I can't TOTALLY fault him for giving it a shot.

Rand definitely needs a foil at this point, so he can look more "Conservative" than he really is without really changing his positions.

I wish Rand would be more pure... but then, he might not win if he did that. The thing is, I don't think he's actually going to win doing what he's doing anyway. Even if the people wanted him, the banksters and weapons contractors will not allow it. The "Defend your freedoms" security hawks will not allow it. I can't totally blame Rand Paul for trying to do what he can to win a losing battle, but I still don't think its going to work.

Oh... I just don't know. Consider me in the "Giving him the benefit of the doubt, voting for him, but still wishing he could be more like his dad."

Rand is who he is. He's Ron's son, but he's not exactly like his Dad.

What gets really annoying is when Randroids push the idea that he IS exactly like his Dad, and only saying certain things right now for political purposes.

In my opinion, they not only insult the intelligence of those more libertarian than Rand, but they also insult Rand himself.

That said, Rand most certainly will be the best GOP candidate running...and for that, he deserves the consideration of liberty-minded Republicans. If he makes it out of the primaries, I will certainly consider voting for him in the general (depending on who is nominated by the LP).

I guess all that makes me a "Rand-hater".

Sola_Fide
04-29-2013, 12:31 PM
Amash is pretty solid. I don't know as much about Massie, but I haven't really heard anything I don't like from him either. Granted, Amash voted for sanctions, which is annoying but I'm more worried about ACTUAL war right now...

I'm just glad nobody mentioned Ted Cruz, who's already proven that he sucks...

Massie is better than Amash. Personally, I think Massie is better than Rand.

Christian Liberty
04-29-2013, 12:36 PM
Rand is who he is. He's Ron's son, but he's not exactly like his Dad.

What gets really annoying is when Randroids push the idea that he IS exactly like his Dad, and only saying certain things right now for political purposes.

In my opinion, they not only insult the intelligence of those more libertarian than Rand, but they also insult Rand himself.

That said, Rand most certainly will be the best GOP candidate running...and for that, he deserves the consideration of liberty-minded Republicans. If he makes it out of the primaries, I will certainly consider voting for him in the general (depending on who is nominated by the LP).

I guess all that makes me a "Rand-hater".

The thing with the LP is they could pick the best candidate in the world but they still haven no actual chance. Sometimes that doesn't matter. If its between Romney and Obama, who cares? I preferred Obama anyway, but only very, very marginally, and even then only because I was scared Romney would bomb Iran more quickly. Neither Romney nor Obama said anything much different in th debates. So yeah, I would have voted LP. Rand Paul is pretty darn good though, so I'd vote for him over a better LP candidate that had no chance to win.

I'd say the 80% test is probably the closest thing to my rule, with some nuances. Decent foreign policy is a must.


Massie is better than Amash. Personally, I think Massie is better than Rand.

I've got to look Massie up in more detail now.

I think Amash is better than Rand too...

Sola_Fide
04-29-2013, 12:40 PM
I've got to look Massie up in more detail now.

I think Amash is better than Rand too...


Look in to Massie. He took himself completely off the grid. He knows what freedom is.

cajuncocoa
04-29-2013, 12:41 PM
The thing with the LP is they could pick the best candidate in the world but they still haven no actual chance. Sometimes that doesn't matter. If its between Romney and Obama, who cares? I preferred Obama anyway, but only very, very marginally, and even then only because I was scared Romney would bomb Iran more quickly. Neither Romney nor Obama said anything much different in th debates. So yeah, I would have voted LP. Rand Paul is pretty darn good though, so I'd vote for him over a better LP candidate that had no chance to win.

I'd say the 80% test is probably the closest thing to my rule, with some nuances. Decent foreign policy is a must.



I've got to look Massie up in more detail now.

I think Amash is better than Rand too...

Oh I know they have no chance (I've heard that one at least a million times!) But they're on my ballot and worthy of my vote if their candidate is the one who best represents me. At least, that's how I look at it.

ninepointfive
04-29-2013, 12:48 PM
Not sure whether to forgive and forget, so we can all move on.....but just in case:

http://memecrunch.com/meme/KB9V/rp-inc/image.png

FSP-Rebel
04-29-2013, 12:49 PM
Rand is who he is. He's Ron's son, but he's not exactly like his Dad.

What gets really annoying is when Randroids push the idea that he IS exactly like his Dad, and only saying certain things right now for political purposes.

In my opinion, they not only insult the intelligence of those more libertarian than Rand, but they also insult Rand himself.

That said, Rand most certainly will be the best GOP candidate running...and for that, he deserves the consideration of liberty-minded Republicans. If he makes it out of the primaries, I will certainly consider voting for him in the general (depending on who is nominated by the LP).

I guess all that makes me a "Rand-hater".
He's hustling libertarianism to conservatives by using talking points that resonate as opposed to red pills that go too far too soon and alienate people from the message. Not only that, we see what lengths the media will go to to rake him over the coals. Ron got their royal treatment and I'm sure they're testing the waters to see what works against Rand. I'm glad he's learning swiftly from his recent gaffe so as to nip this in the bud and make it ancient history. I can't speak for Rand but I'm an ancap that fancies around as a republitarian in republican circles and use similar tactics as him to move the conservatives in our direction. And, the main areas where this works like a charm has been in regards to CISPA, foreign aid, foreign interventions and due process. The economic issues pretty much take care of themselves. When you're trying to sell a product you identify your audiences' mentality and proceed in such a way as to show them that what you're selling is good for them and why they should support or want it. Whether it's one on one or in a group, focus on key points of interest and stay out of the weeds of the lecture hall. Yet, you seem to want to go to your grave hell bent on proving that Rand is not a liberty salesman. So quick to snipe at the slightest deviation from Ronspeak despite the overwhelming effort that Rand has put in to stop or lessen the too-many-to-count anti-liberty legislation that has come through the Senate. He's even pulling more allies into our camp and is able to use "their" media outlets to do it. The Paul, Cruz, Lee meme as the new leaders of the party goes over as well as Cabrera does at Comerica Park. >>EPIC

FSP-Rebel
04-29-2013, 12:52 PM
The thing with the LP is they could pick the best candidate in the world but they still haven no actual chance. Sometimes that doesn't matter. If its between Romney and Obama, who cares? I preferred Obama anyway, but only very, very marginally, and even then only because I was scared Romney would bomb Iran more quickly. Neither Romney nor Obama said anything much different in th debates. So yeah, I would have voted LP.

I'd say the 80% test is probably the closest thing to my rule, with some nuances. Decent foreign policy is a must.


Which is why I wrote in Ron instead and some LP and GOP down ticket. Yet if there's a known 80%+ on the GOP ticket, I always roll with them.

Christian Liberty
04-29-2013, 12:57 PM
Oh I know they have no chance (I've heard that one at least a million times!) But they're on my ballot and worthy of my vote if their candidate is the one who best represents me. At least, that's how I look at it.

I normally agree with you. I can't think of an election where I'd actually have voted for the GOP candidate since at least Goldwater (And I don't know a whole lot about him.) I make an exception when the GOP (Or Democrat, in the theoretical event) is really good even if not as good as the guy who has no chance.

I'd vote for an LP candidate that had no chance and agreed with me 95% of the time over a GOP candidate who only agreed with me 25% of the time. But I'd vote for a GOP candidate who agreed with me 85% of the time over an LP candidate that had no chance and agreed with me 95% of the time. Possible exception if Ron Paul was the LP candidate...

LibertyEagle
04-29-2013, 01:10 PM
Who's "we"? You treat this board like your own personal collective, LE. Maybe some here do agree with Cruz...some on some things, others on everything. But that doesn't mean everyone agrees with him. Dammit, I forgot to put you on ignore the other day but I'm going to take care of that right now.

Let me restate then, Cajun, so that you will understand. Cruz has made a lot of votes that Ron Paul would have made. Some he has not.

Stop trying to find a new god to idolize. None of them are going to be perfect. Praise them for their good votes and criticize the bad. Focus on the topics; not the people.

Do you understand now?

LibertyEagle
04-29-2013, 01:11 PM
Rand is who he is. He's Ron's son, but he's not exactly like his Dad.

What gets really annoying is when Randroids push the idea that he IS exactly like his Dad, and only saying certain things right now for political purposes.

In my opinion, they not only insult the intelligence of those more libertarian than Rand, but they also insult Rand himself.

That said, Rand most certainly will be the best GOP candidate running...and for that, he deserves the consideration of liberty-minded Republicans. If he makes it out of the primaries, I will certainly consider voting for him in the general (depending on who is nominated by the LP).

I guess all that makes me a "Rand-hater".

It almost sounds like Ron was talking about you, doesn't it?

"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=pB5JgzBVHN0

EBounding
04-29-2013, 01:19 PM
If people don't want to support Rand, that's ok. There's ways to spread liberty other than supporting political candidates. I just hope no one tries to undermine him by getting behind a 3rd party candidate running against him.

cajuncocoa
04-29-2013, 01:29 PM
It almost sounds like Ron was talking about you, doesn't it?

"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=pB5JgzBVHN0

If it was only ME, I don't think Ron would have wasted the time to make that statement. Rand does a pretty good job of driving wedges between himself and his Dad's supporters all by himself....and if I am the only one who thought so, Ron would not have had to bother to stop the bleeding.

LibertyEagle
04-29-2013, 01:31 PM
If it was only ME, I don't think Ron would have wasted the time to make that statement. Rand does a pretty good job of driving wedges between himself and his Dad's supporters all by himself....and if I am the only one who thought so, Ron would not have had to bother to stop the bleeding.




Thank you for confirming that your goal is to drive a wedge between Ron Paul supporters and Rand Paul supporters.

cajuncocoa
04-29-2013, 01:33 PM
Let me restate then, Cajun, so that you will understand. Cruz has made a lot of votes that Ron Paul would have made. Some he has not.

Stop trying to find a new god to idolize. None of them are going to be perfect. Praise them for their good votes and criticize the bad. Focus on the topics; not the people.

Do you understand now?
LOL, I'm not the one who doesn't understand (that would be you).

I'm not looking for a "new god" to idolize (there is only one God in my life, and He's not Ron Paul).

I don't expect to find another political figures as perfect as Ron Paul.

And I DO praise candidates when they do good and criticize them when they're not....only when the criticism falls on Rand, you have a hissy-fit like a school girl whose best friend told her that her favorite boy-band sucks.

cajuncocoa
04-29-2013, 01:33 PM
Thank you for confirming that your goal is to drive a wedge between Ron Paul supporters and Rand Paul supporters.
You really do have a reading comprehension problem.

LibertyEagle
04-29-2013, 01:33 PM
There you go again.

CCTelander
04-29-2013, 01:40 PM
Thank you for confirming that your goal is to drive a wedge between Ron Paul supporters and Rand Paul supporters.


She did no such thing and you're very well aware of the fact. Your comment is disingenuous to the point of flagrant mendacity. You owe cajun an apology, but I'm quite certain one will not be forthcoming.

LibertyEagle
04-29-2013, 01:44 PM
She did no such thing and you're very well aware of the fact. Your comment is disingenuous to the point of flagrant mendacity. You owe cajun an apology, but I'm quite certain one will not be forthcoming.

You are absolutely correct. One will not be coming.

------------

"People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul


If it was only ME, I don't think Ron would have wasted the time to make that statement.

ninepointfive
04-29-2013, 02:12 PM
LE's goal/job/daily routine, is to drive a wedge between people on this forum. And does a good job of it. Usually trlls are banned, but she once was a moderator - which is quite surprising.

cajuncocoa
04-29-2013, 02:20 PM
Rand is who he is. He's Ron's son, but he's not exactly like his Dad.

What gets really annoying is when Randroids push the idea that he IS exactly like his Dad, and only saying certain things right now for political purposes.

In my opinion, they not only insult the intelligence of those more libertarian than Rand, but they also insult Rand himself.

That said, Rand most certainly will be the best GOP candidate running...and for that, he deserves the consideration of liberty-minded Republicans. If he makes it out of the primaries, I will certainly consider voting for him in the general (depending on who is nominated by the LP).

I guess all that makes me a "Rand-hater".


It almost sounds like Ron was talking about you, doesn't it?

"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=pB5JgzBVHN0


If it was only ME, I don't think Ron would have wasted the time to make that statement. Rand does a pretty good job of driving wedges between himself and his Dad's supporters all by himself....and if I am the only one who thought so, Ron would not have had to bother to stop the bleeding.




She did no such thing and you're very well aware of the fact. Your comment is disingenuous to the point of flagrant mendacity. You owe cajun an apology, but I'm quite certain one will not be forthcoming.

Correct, CC...I did no such thing. But LE seized the opportunity to do to me what she accuses so-called "Rand-haters" of doing to him. She chose only to highlight the part about "driving wedges" when that wasn't the whole point of my post, or of Ron's statement.

I know you know that, but I wouldn't want my point to be misconstrued with anyone else who may be playing "gotcha" games.